Helena Bugajewitz v. Louis Adams
| Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 239,239 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 978,228 U.S. 585,33 S.Ct. 607 |
| Parties | HELENA BUGAJEWITZ, Appt., v. LOUIS ADAMS, United States Inspector in Charge of Immigration of Colorado; D. C. Bailey, United States Marshal, etc., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joshua Freeman Grozier and John A. Deweese for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 586-589 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General Harr for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 589 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to custody. The ground of the appeal is that the act of March 26, 1910, chap. 128, § 2, 36 Stat. at L. 263, 265, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, pp. 501, 502, relied on as authority for the arrest, impairs the petitioner's constitutional rights. It appears from the petition and the return to the writ that the petitioner is an alien; that she entered the United States not later than January 4, 1905, and that she was arrested on August 3, 1910, on an order of the Acting Secretary of Commerce and Labor, directing the Immigrant Inspector to take her into custody, and to grant her a hearing to show cause why she should not be deported. The order recited that she was then a prostitute and inmate of a house of prostitution, and that she was a prostitute at the time of entry, and entered the United States for the purpose of prostitution or for an immoral purpose. The answer to the return demurs to its sufficiency, and denies that she was a prostitute at the time of entry, or that she entered the United States for any of the purposes alleged; but we must take it, at least, that she is a prostitute now.
By the act of February 20, 1907, chap. 1134, § 3, 34 Stat. at L. 898, 899, any alien woman found practising prostitution within three years after she should have entered the United States was to be deported 'as provided by sections twenty and twenty-one of this act.' This section was amended by the act of March 26, 1910, chap. 128, § 2, 36 Stat. at L. 265, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 502, [591]
and the limitation of three years was stricken out, but the amendment still refers to §§ 20, 21, and orders deportation 'in the manner provided by' §§ 20, 21. The beginning of these two sections provides for the taking into custody of aliens subject to removal, within three years from entry, and so it has been argued in other cases that the three-year limitation still holds good. The construction of the amendment was not relied on here, but before we can deal with the constitutional question it becomes necessary to dispose of that point. We are of opinion that the effect of striking out the three-year clause from § 3 is not changed by the reference to §§ 20 and 21. The change in the phraseology of the reference indicates to narrowed purpose. The prostitute is to be deported, not 'as provided' but 'in the manner provided' in §§ 20, 21. Those sections provide the means for securing deportation, and it still was proper to point to them for that. United States ex rel. Mango v. Weis, 181 Fed. 860; Chomel v. United States, 112 C. C. A. 461, 192 Fed. 117
The attempt to reopen the constitutional question must fail. It is thoroughly established that Congress has power to order the deportation of aliens whose presence in the country it deems hurtful. The determination by facts that might constitute a crime under local law is not a conviction of crime, nor is the deportation a punishment; it is simply a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maria v. McElroy
...531, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911 (1954) (refusing to apply Ex Post Facto Clause to a deportation statute); Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 57 L.Ed. 978 (1913) (prohibition against ex post facto laws had no application to a statute that made prostitution grounds for This......
-
Carlson v. Landon Butterfield v. Zydok
...336, 338, 35 L.Ed. 1146; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 707, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 1019, 37 L.Ed. 905; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 33 S.Ct. 607, 57 L.Ed. 978; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 280, 42 S.Ct. 492, 493, 66 L.Ed. 938; United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.......
-
Bridges v. Wixon
...not criminal punishment (Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 242, 32 S.Ct. 613, 617, 56 L.Ed. 1066; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 608, 57 L.Ed. 978; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 39, 44 S.Ct. 283, 286, 68 L.Ed. 549), it may nevertheless visit as great a hardshi......
-
Helvering v. Mitchell
...v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460, 32 S.Ct. 734, 56 L.Ed. 1165; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272, 33 S.Ct. 31, 57 L.Ed. 218; Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 33 S.Ct. 607, 57 L.Ed. 978; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 42 S.Ct. 492, 66 L.Ed. 938; United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 1......
-
THE IMAGINARY IMMIGRATION CLAUSE.
...86, 97-99 (1903). (493.) Act of Mar. 26, 1910, ch. 128, [section] 3, 36 Stat. 263, 264-65 (repealed 1917). (494.) Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 (495.) See id. at 590-91. (496.) Id. at 591. (497.) Lapina v. Williams, 232 U.S. 78, 88 (1914). (498.) Id. (emphasis added). (499.) See Si......
-
Determining the retroactive effect of laws altering the consequences of criminal convictions.
...only protects the reliance-backed planning decisions of immigrants with criminal convictions. (131) (1.) See, e.g., Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 608-09 (1913) (upholding a law that provided for the deportation of a women convicted of prostitution); Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 19......
-
Enhancing sentences for past crimes of violence: the unlikely intersection of illegal reentry and sex crimes.
...OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS tbl. 11 (2008), available at http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2008/Table 11 .pdf. (19) Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 (20) Id. (21) See Stumpf, supra note 9, at 265 & n.36. (22) Id. Immigration hearings do not recognize other constitutional protections......
-
SOURCES AND LIMITS FOR PRESIDENTIAL POWER: PERSPECTIVES OF ROBERT H. JACKSON.
...Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)). (386) Hirabayashi, 320 U.S. at 96. (387) Id. at 594 (quoting Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591 (388) Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 214-15 (1953). (389) Id. at 207. (390) Id. at 208. (391) Id. at 227 (Jackson.......