Bridges v. Wixon

Decision Date18 June 1945
Docket NumberNo. 788,788
PartiesBRIDGES v. WIXON, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Under statute providing for deportation of aliens who are members of or affiliated with any organization that believes in the overthrow by force of the government of the United States, 'affiliation' imports less than membership but more than sympathy, and a working alliance to bring to fruition the proscribed program of a proscribed organization, as distinguished from mere co-operation with a proscribed organization in lawful activities, is essential. Immigration Act of 1918, §§ 1—3, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 137(c, e—g).

[Syllabus from pages 135-137 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Richard Gladstein, of San Francisco, Cal., and Lee Pressman, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Sol. Gen. Fahy, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Harry Bridges is an alien who entered this country from Australia in 1920. In 1938 deportation proceedings were instituted against him on the ground that he both had been and then was a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States and that that party advised and taught the overthrow by force of the govern- ment of the United States and caused printed matter to be circulated which advocated that course. Under the statute then in force past membership or past affiliation was insufficient for deportation, present membership or present affiliation being required. Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22, 59 S.Ct. 694, 83 L.Ed. 1082. A hearing was had. The examiner, Hon. James M. Landis, concluded that the evidence established neither that Harry Bridges 'is a member of nor affiliated with' the Communist Party of the United States. The Secretary of Labor sustained the examiner and dismissed the proceedings. That was in January 1940. By the Act of June 28, 1940, Congress amended the statute so as to provide for deportation of any lien who was 'at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter' a member of or affiliated with an organization of the character attributed to the Communist Party in the first proceeding.1 A second deportation proceeding was instituted against Harry Bridges under the amended statute on the ground that he had been a member of or affiliated with that organization.2 Another hearing was had. The inspector designated to conduct the hearings and make a report, Hon. Charles B. Sears, found that the Communist Party of the United States was an organization of the character described in the statute, that the Marine Workers Industrial Union was affiliated with the Communist Party and was an organization of the same character, and that after entering this country Harry Bridges had been affiliated with both organi ations and had been a member of the Communist party. He recommended deportation. The case was heard by the Board of Immigration Appeals3 which found that Harry Bridges had not been a member of or affiliated with either of those organizations at any time after he entered this country. The Attorney General reviewed the decision of the Board and rendered an opinion in which he made findings in accordance with those proposed by the inspector and ordered Harry Bridges to be deported. A warrant of deportation was issued. Harry Bridges surrendered himself to the custody of respondent and challenged the legality of his detention by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District of California. That court denied the petition and remanded petitioner to the custody of respondent. 49 F.Supp. 292. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote. 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 927, 944. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the serious character of the questions which are presented.

As we have said, Harry Bridges came here from Australia in 1920. He has not returned to Australia since that time. He was a longshoreman. In 1933 he became active in trade union work on the water front in San Francisco. The Attorney General found that he had 'done much to improve the conditions that existed among the longshoremen'. He reorganized and headed up the International Longshoremen's Association, an American Federation of Labor union. He led the maritime workers' strike on the Pacific Coast in 1934. He was president of the local International Longshoremen's Association from 1934 to 1936 and was Pacific Coast president in 1936. In 1937 his union broke with the American Federation of Labor, changed its name to International Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union, and became affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. Bridges was elected Pacific Coast District President of that union and has held the office ever since. He also holds several important offices in the C.I.O.

The two grounds on which the deportation order rests—that Harry Bridges at one time had been both 'affiliated' with the Communist party and a member of it—present different questions with which we deal separately.

Affiliation. The statute defines affiliation as follows:

'For the purpose of this section: (1) the giving, loaning, or promising of money or any thing of value to be used for the advising, advocacy, or teaching of any doctrine above enumerated shall constitute the advising, advocacy, or teaching of such doctrine; and (2) the giving, loaning or promising of money or any thing of value to any organization, association, society, or group of the character above described shall constitute affiliation therewith; but nothing in this paragraph shall be taken as an exclusive definition of advising, advocacy, teaching, or affiliation.' 41 Stat. 1009, 8 U.S.C. § 137(f), 8 U.S.C.A. § 137(f).

The doctrine referred to is the overthrow of the government by force or violence.4 The organizations or groups referred to are those which advise and teach that doctrine or which write, circulate, display and the like or have in their possession for such purpose any written or printed matter of that character.

In ruling on the question whether an alien had been 'affiliated' with the Communist party and therefore could be deported, the court in United States ex rel. Kettunen v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 315, 317, said that such an affiliation was not proved 'unless the alien is shown to have so conducted himself that he has brought about a status of mutual recognition that he may be relied on to co-operate with the Communist Party on a fairly permanent basis. He must be more than merely in sympathy with its aims or even willing to aid it in a casual intermittent way. Affiliation includes an element of dependability upon which the organization can rely which, though not equivalent to membership duty, does rest upon a course of conduct that could not be abruptly ended without giving at least reasonable cause for the charge of a breach of good faith.' The same idea was expressed by Dean Landis in the first Bridges' report. After stating that 'affiliation' implies a 'stronger bond' than 'association', he went on to say: 'In the corporate field its use embraces not the casual affinity of an occasional similarity of objective, but ties and connections that, though less than that complete control which parent possesses over subsidiary, are nevertheless sufficient to create a continuing relationship that embraces both units within the concept of a system. In the field of eleemosynary and political organization the same basic idea prevails.' And he concluded: 'Persons engaged in bitter industrial struggles tend to seek help and assistance from every available source. But the intermittent solicitation and acceptance of such help must be shown to have ripened into those bonds of mutual cooperation and alliance that entail continuing reciprocal duties and responsibilities before they can be deemed to come within the statutory requirement of affiliation. * * * To expand that statutory definition to embrace within its terms ad hoc co-operation on objectives whose pursuit is clearly allowable under our constitutional system, or friendly associations that have not been shown to have resulted in the employment of illegal means, is warranted neither by reason nor by law.'

The legislative history throws little light on the meaning of 'affiliation' as used in the statute. It imports, however, less than membership but more than sympathy. By the terms of the statute it includes those who contribute money or anything of value to an organization which believes in, advises, advocates, or teaches the overthrow of our government by force or violence. That example throws light on the meaning of the term 'affiliation'. He who renders financial assistance to any organization may generally be said to approve of its objectives or aims. So Congress declared in the case of an alien who contributed to the treasury of an organization whose aim was to overthrow the government by force and violence. But he who cooperates with such an organization only in its wholly lawful activities cannot by that fact be said as a matter of law to be 'affiliated' with it. Nor is it conclusive that the cooperation was more than intermittent and showed a rather consistent course of conduct. Common sense indicates that the term 'affiliation' in this setting should be construed more narrowly. Individuals, like nations, may cooperate in a common cause over a period of months or years though their ultimate aims do not coincide. Alliances for limited objectives are well known. Certainly those who joined forces with Russia to defeat the Nazis may not be said to have made an alliance to spread the cause of Communism. An individual who makes contributions to feed hungry men does not become 'affiliated' with the Communist cause because those men are Communists. A different result is not necessarily indicated if aid is given to or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
529 cases
  • Ramos v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 6 Agosto 2018
    ...interest arising from the fact that the TPS statute permits them to live and work in this country. Cf. Bridges v. Wixon , 326 U.S. 135, 154, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945) (observing that deportation "visits a great hardship on the individual and deprives him of the right to stay and l......
  • Wilkinson v. Legal Services Corporation, Civil Action No. 91-0889 (JHG) (D. D.C. 1998)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 1 Noviembre 1998
    ...Clause or a principle of administrative law that made such rules binding upon the agency. See id. 3. Accardi Emerges In Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945), the Court both strengthened and qualified the doctrine: the Court reinforced Bilokumsky's assumption that an alien's deportation cou......
  • Randolph v. Willis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 28 Junio 1963
    ...L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Chapman v. Sheridan-Wyoming Co., 338 U.S. 621, 629, 70 S.Ct. 392, 94 L.Ed. 393 (1950); Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 153, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945); see also, Jeffries v. Oleson, 121 F. Supp. 463, 476 (10) Mr. Chief Justice Marshall once observed: "A case in......
  • Miranda v. Garland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 12 Mayo 2022
    ...v. Dimaya , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1213, 200 L.Ed.2d 549 (2018) (internal quotations omitted); see Bridges v. Wixon , 326 U.S. 135, 147, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945) ("[D]eportation may result in the loss ‘of all that makes life worth living.’ "). The Supreme Court has repea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 books & journal articles
  • Evidence handed to the IRS criminal division on a "civil" platter: constitutional infringements on taxpayers.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 91 No. 3, March 2001
    • 22 Marzo 2001
    ...Manual's provisions are, at the very least, relevant in determining whether a taxpayer's constitutional rights have been offended"). (135) 326 U.S. 135, 152-53 (136) United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 757 (1979) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (citing Bridges, 326 U.S. 135 (holding invalid ......
  • From a Dream to Reality Check: Protecting the Rights of Tomorrow's Conditional Legal Resident Enlistees
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 216, July 2013
    • 1 Julio 2013
    ...when Private Gonzales is separated from the Army prior to completing two years of service or with 200 Id . (citing Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945)). 201 PonceLeiva v. John D. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 381 (3d Cir. 2003) (Rendell, J., dissenting). 202 See supra pp. 15–16; infra Appe......
  • Article II judges: section 238's violation of separation of powers
    • United States
    • Georgetown Immigration Law Journal No. 37-1, October 2022
    • 1 Octubre 2022
    ...off‌icial is actually stripped of discretion and must detain individuals suspected of being non-citizens). 82. 83. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154 (1945) (citations omitted) (“Though deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding, it visits a great hardship on the individual and d......
  • THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 7, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...(251.) Cox & Rodriguez, supra note 40, at 34; see, e.g., Henkin, supra note 39, at 857-58 n.20. (252.) See, e.g., Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (253.) The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. at 609. (254.) Field, Stephen Johnson, CQ Press, https://library.cqpress.com/scc/document.php......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Fed. R. Evid. 801 Definitions Thatapply to This Article; Exclusions From Hearsay
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Evidence Article VIII. Hearsay
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...can be had or important right taken away on the basis of statements not made under fear of prosecution for perjury, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945), the fact is that, of the many common law exceptions to the hearsay rule, only that for reported testimony ......
  • 28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 801 Definitions that Apply to This Article; Exclusions From Hearsay
    • United States
    • US Code 2023 Edition Title 28 Appendix Federal Rules of Evidence Article VIII. Hearsay
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...taken away on the basis of statements not made under fear of prosecution for perjury, Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945), the fact is that, of the many common law exceptions to the hearsay rule, only that for reported testimony has required the statement to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT