Kaminer v. Clark, 10267.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 10267.,10267. |
| Parties | KAMINER et al. v. CLARK, Attorney General of the United States, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Irving Jaffe, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman and Thomas Cooley, II, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Messrs. Ross O'Donoghue and Samuel K. Abrams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied November 7, 1949. See 70 S.Ct. 147.
The appellant, Leon Kaminer,1 is an alien who arrived at the Port of New York and sought to enter the United States. On the ground that to admit him would be prejudicial to the best interests of the nation, the Attorney General ordered that he be excluded and deported. This action was taken under regulations promulgated pursuant to a presidential proclamation, which in turn was based upon an act of June 21, 1941.2 That statute empowers the President, in time of war or other national emergency, to proclaim restrictions and prohibitions upon the departure of persons from, and their entry into, the United States.
Kaminer sued the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Immigration in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that the act referred to, as implemented by the proclamation and regulations thereunder, be declared unconstitutional; that deportation or further detention without a hearing be declared illegal and void; that a hearing be granted; and that meanwhile the order of deportation be suspended and release on bond be permitted.
A statutory three-judge court held constitutional the act of Congress pursuant to which the executive action was taken, and remanded the cause to a single judge for such further proceedings as might be appropriate. Thereupon the District Court dismissed the complaint as amended, and this appeal followed.
While this suit is for a declaratory judgment, it is substantially similar to an application for a writ of habeas corpus, because, in addition to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kristensen v. McGrath
...judgment is well taken if he can prove the existence of a justiciable case or controversy. Our decision in Kaminer v. Clark, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 177 F.2d 51, 52, does not conflict with anything here decided. In that case, Kaminer sought a declaratory judgment in this district althoug......
-
Hurley v. Reed, 15886.
...Parole Board, however, on two decisions of our court. Clark v. Memolo, 1949, 85 U.S. App.D.C. 65, 174 F.2d 978, and Kaminer v. Clark, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 177 F.2d 51. In the Memolo case, a declaratory judgment was sought concerning an assumed invalid sentence in another district. The......
-
LoBue v. Christopher, s. 95-5293
...1326, 1331, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986). We thus begin, and end, with the question of the district court's jurisdiction. In Kaminer v. Clark, 177 F.2d 51 (D.C.Cir.1949), we ruled that the availability of a habeas remedy in another district ousted us of jurisdiction over an alien's effort to pose ......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy
...support of his claim that this Court is competent to sustain the writ of habeas corpus, relator relies heavily upon Kaminer v. Clark, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 177 F.2d 51, certiorari denied, 1949, 338 U.S. 873, 70 S.Ct. 147, 94 L.Ed. 536. I cannot agree with him. No assertion was made in ......