Ali Gegiow v. Byron Uhl
| Decision Date | 25 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 340,340 |
| Citation | 60 L.Ed. 114,36 S.Ct. 2,239 U.S. 3 |
| Parties | ALI GEGIOW and Sabas Zarikoew, Petitioners, v. BYRON H. UHL, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Max J. Kohler, Morris Jablow, Ralph Barnett, and Abram I. Elkus for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 4-5 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Davis and Assistant Attorney General Wallace for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 6-8 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
The petitioners are Russians seeking to enter the United States. They have been detained for deportation by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration, and have sued out a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was dismissed by the district court and the circuit court of appeals. 211 Fed. 236; 131 C. C. A. 641, 215 Fed. 573. By the return it appears that they are part of a group of illiterate laborers, only one of whom, it seems, Gegiow, speaks even the ordinary Russian tongue, and in view of that fact it was suggested in a letter from the acting commissioner to the Commissioner General that their ignorance tended to make them form a clique to the detriment of the community; but that is a trouble incident to the immigration of foreigners generally which it is for legislators, not for commissioners, to consider, and may be laid on one side. The objection relied upon in the return is that the petitioners were 'likely to become public charges for the following, among other reasons: That they arrived here with very little money [$40 and $25, respectively], and are bound for Portland, Oregon, where the reports of industrial conditions show that it would be impossible for these aliens to obtain employment; that they have no one legally obligated here to assist them; and upon all the facts, the said aliens were upon the said grounds duly excluded,' etc. We assume the report to be candid, and, if so, it shows that the only ground for the order was the state of the labor market at Portland at that time; the amount of money possessed and ignorance of our language being thrown in only as makeweights. It is true that the return says for that 'among other reasons.' But the state of the labor market is the only one disclosed in the evidence or the facts that were noticed at the hearing, and the only one that was before the Secretary of Labor on appeal; and as the order was general for a group of twenty it cannot fairly be interpreted to stand upon reasons undisclosed. Therefore it is unnecessary to consider whether to have the reasons disclosed is one of the alien's rights. The only matter that we have to deal with is the construction of the statute with reference to the present case.
The courts are not forbidden by the statute to consider whether the reasons, when they are given, agree with the requirements of the act. The statute, by enumerating the conditions upon which the allowance to land may be denied, prohibits the denial in other cases. And when the record shows that a commissioner of immigration is exceeding his power, the alien may demand his release upon habeas corpus. The conclusiveness of the decisions of immigration officers under § 25 is conclusiveness upon matters of fact. This was implied in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 35 L. ed. 1146, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., Docket Nos. 19-3591
...weighed in on the meaning of "public charge" in its first and (as of yet) only interpretation of the term. In Gegiow v. Uhl , 239 U.S. 3, 36 S.Ct. 2, 60 L.Ed. 114 (1915), the Court considered the case of two Russian immigrants who had been found likely to become public charges because they ......
-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...officer gives for his actions agree with the requirements of the statute under which he purports to act. Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U. S. 36 Sup. Ct. 2, 60 L. Ed. 114; American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 23 Sup. Ct. 33, 47 L. Ed. 90. The fact that material appearing in a ......
-
Estep v. United States Smith v. Same
...has conferred upon them. American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 23 S.Ct. 33, 47 L.Ed. 90; Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3, 36 S.Ct. 2, 60 L.Ed. 114; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 64 S.Ct. 559, 88 L.Ed. 733. Judicial review may indeed be required by the Constitution. Ng F......
-
Jean v. Nelson
...could not issue until executive officials made individualized findings that aliens were undesirable residents); Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3, 9, 36 S.Ct. 2, 3, 60 L.Ed. 114 (1915) ("[W]hen the record shows that a commissioner of immigration is exceeding his power, the alien may demand his rele......
-
THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
...(1895); Lees v. United States, 150 U.S. 476, 480 (1893). (438.) See, e.g., Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 464 (1920); Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3, 9 (1915); Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460, 475-76 (1912); Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U.S. 8, 13 (1908); United States v. Ju Toy, 1......
-
The Problem with Public Charge.
...76 (" [T]he conflict of [judicial] decisions continues with no tendency to settle the matter."). (88.) CLARK, supra note 56, at 76. (89.) 239 U.S. 3 (90.) Id. at 9-10. (91.) Id. at 10 (quoting Act of Feb. 20,1907, ch. 1134, [section] 2, 34 Stat. 898, 898-99 (as amended by Act of Mar. 26,191......
-
EXCLUDING 'UNDESIRABLE' IMMIGRANTS: PUBLIC CHARGE AS DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION.
...may fall into distress or need public aid"). (34.) Immigration Act of 1907, ch. 1134, [section] 2, 34 Stat. 898, 899. (35.) Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3, 10 (1915) (finding that Russian noncitizens could not be deported as public charges solely because the city they intended to enter had high ......