14 Cited authorities
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
342 U.S. 580 (1952) Cited 562 timesHolding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"
Galvan v. Press
347 U.S. 522 (1954) Cited 387 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that while aliens may receive procedural due process, the court's ability to review the substantive policy of immigration statutes is limited to review for rationality
Shapiro v. United States
335 U.S. 1 (1948) Cited 449 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that "essentially regulatory" recordkeeping may be required of private individuals without violating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
Marcello v. Bonds
349 U.S. 302 (1955) Cited 254 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that it does not violate due process to have an adjudicator who is "subject to the supervision and control of officials in the Immigration Service charged with investigative and prosecuting functions"
United States v. La Franca
282 U.S. 568 (1931) Cited 221 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a liquor tax assessed only against those prosecuted for illegal manufacture or sale of liquor was barred on statutory grounds, thus avoiding the "grave constitutional question" whether double jeopardy principles precluded such an assessment
Lehmann v. Carson
353 U.S. 685 (1957) Cited 46 timesFinding it "indisputable" that Congress intended to legislate retrospectively when it provided for deportation of those who committed specified crimes "at any time after entry"
Mulcahey v. Catalanotte
353 U.S. 692 (1957) Cited 29 timesDeporting a man for a 1925 narcotics conviction pursuant to §§ 241 and (d) of INA 1952
Blair v. City of Chicago
201 U.S. 400 (1906) Cited 141 timesIn Blair v. Chicago, 201 U.S. 400, 463, a decision obviously rendered upon "great consideration," it is declared that a corporation which would successfully assert a private right in a public street must come prepared to show that it has been conferred " in plain terms," "in express terms," and that any ambiguity in the terms of the grant must be resolved in favor of the public and against the corporation, " which can claim nothing which is not clearly given.
Pennsylvania Co. v. United States
236 U.S. 351 (1915) Cited 61 timesAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 591. Argued December 14, 15, 1914. Decided February 23, 1915. Section 3 of the Act to Regulate Commerce forbids any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage in favor of any person, company, firm, corporation or locality, and what is such undue or unreasonable preference or advantage is not a question of law but of fact. The courts cannot set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in regard
Ex Parte Robles-Rubio
119 F. Supp. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1954) Cited 8 timesNo. 33229. January 21, 1954. Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Sol A. Abrams, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. GOODMAN, District Judge. Petitioner, Robles-Rubio, an alien Mexican national, being detained and about to be deported by the District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is detained and illegally threatened with deportation
Section 1101 - Definitions
8 U.S.C. § 1101 Cited 16,409 times 91 Legal AnalysesFinding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,759 times 66 Legal AnalysesHolding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,155 times 1 Legal AnalysesDelineating crimes that make alien deportable
Section 1254 - Repealed
8 U.S.C. § 1254 Cited 1,130 times 1 Legal AnalysesDescribing suspension-of-deportation eligibility