Barton v. Sentner Sentner v. Barton, 11
Citation | 77 S.Ct. 1047,353 U.S. 963,1 L.Ed.2d 901 |
Decision Date | 20 May 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 11,No. 728,No. 784,11,728,784 |
Parties | Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District , appellant, v. Antonia SENTNER. Antonia SENTNER, appellant, v. Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, and Beatrice Rosenberg, for Barton.
Mr. Sydney L. Berger, for Sentner.
The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194, 77 S.Ct. 779.
They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an apportunity to present the Government's side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 1252(d)(3), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(3), 'to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General Advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens * * *.' It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of § 242(d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of § 242(d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Silvey v. Roberts, 72-915-Civ-J.
...235, 27 L.Ed.2d 240 (Justice White dissenting from the summary affirmance); Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (Justices Burton and Clark dissenting from the summary affirmance). Stern and Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 197 (4th ed. 1969) was also cited. 18 209 ......
-
Hurley v. Van Lare, 72 Civ. 3423.
...United States, 400 U.S. 932, 91 S. Ct. 235, 27 L.Ed.2d 240 (1970) (White, J., dissenting); Barton v. Sentner, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (1957) (Burton and Clark, JJ., dissenting); United States ex rel. Fein v. Deegan, 410 F.2d 13 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 935, 89 S......
-
Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Md., Civ. No. 15402.
....... United States District Court D. Maryland. . January 11, 1965. 237 F. Supp. 223 Robert H. Reiter, ......
-
Brenner v. School District of Kansas City, Missouri
...on June 30, 1970. See 87 Cal.Rptr. 839, 471 P.2d 487). 25 This Court, consistent with Barton v. Senter, 353 U.S. 963, 77 S.Ct. 1047, 1 L.Ed.2d 901 (Burton, J., and Clark, J., dissenting) in regard to the effect of summary action on the merits, has in the past directed close attention to sum......