Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court case that established the federal government's power to detain immigrants at the border pending deportation. The Supreme Court, held that the Attorney General's continued detention of an immigrant without a hearing pending deportation was not unlawful, and that such persons could not be temporarily admitted to the United States in lieu thereof.^[1]

Ignatz Mezei was born in Gibraltar of Hungarian and Romanian descent, had arrived in the United States in 1923, and lived in Buffalo, New York for 25 years.^[2] In 1948, Ignatz Mezei left his wife, four stepchildren, and a carpenter job to visit his dying mother in Romania.^[3] However, Mezei found himself unable to secure entry into Romania and decided to return to the United States.^[4] After spending 19 months overseas, Mezei was able to secure a quota immigration visa issued by the American Consul in Budapest, Hungary; he then returned to the U.S. aboard a ship bound for Ellis Island.^[5] On February 9, 1950, Ignatz Mezei’s ship arrived in New York where he was informed by an immigration inspector that he was inadmissible.^[6] While the precise grounds and factual basis for this were unknown to Mezei, he was aware that IRS had once looked into him for possible ties to the Hungarian lodge of the International Workers Order.^[7] Prior to his removal hearing, Mezei’s attorney met with a Justice Department official who presented that the denial of admission arose based on three grounds:^[8]

1. That Mezei was a member of the Communist Party at some point during 1929–1945. Mezei served as President and Secretary of the International Workers Order's Hungarian lodge in Buffalo, New York;
2. Mezei was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (petty larceny in 1935); and
3. that the statements he provided to consular officers in Hungary to obtain an immigrant quota visa were materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent.

However, Mezei himself was not presented with this information. Ignatz Mezei was detained for two years on Ellis Island by order of the Attorney General before filing a writ of habeas corpus to the District Court.^[9] The District Court held that Mezei would be granted a $5000 bail and the Court of Appeals approved; the Supreme Court then granted certiorari.^[10]

Justice Clark gave the opinion of the Supreme Court. Justice Clark reaffirmed governmental power to bar the admission of foreigners into the United States, stating it was a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control", citing Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) and Harisiades v. Shaughnessey (1952).^[11] Mezei was denied admission pursuant to the Passport Act of 1918.^[12] This law authorized restrictions on foreign admission to and departure from the United States during periods of international tension. The court held the Attorney General properly used that authority when denying entry to Mezei based on United States involvement in the Cold War.^[13] The court further held that Mezei did not accrue any right to lawful admission during the time he had lived in New York.^[14] Therefore, the court held the admissibility status of Mezei was "assimilated" to that of a newly arrived foreigner for constitutional purposes.^[15]

Due to the court finding that Ignatz Mezei's admission into the United States would be prejudicial to the public interest, the legality of his detention on Ellis Island was at issue. There, the court held that his detention on Ellis Island was no different legally than if he was detained at the border outside a port of entry; thus, he could be expeditiously removed from Ellis Island without a hearing.^[16] In this final holding, the Court stated that Mezei's detention on Ellis Island did not deprive him of any cognizable right.^[17]

In the five to four decision, four Justices joined the dissenting opinion. Justice Black, with whom Justice Douglas concurred, stated that Ignatz Mezei's continued detention without a hearing violated due process.^[18] In this case, due process had been violated because "neither the federal police nor the federal prosecutors nor any other governmental official, whatever his title, can put or keep people in prison without accountability to courts of justice".^[19] Therefore, the dissenters stated that Mezei had been deprived of his liberty due to his detention occurring outside of judicial proceedings.^[20]

The final two dissenters, Justice Jackson joined by Justice Frankfurter, further expanded the concerns stated in the other dissenting opinion.^[21] The federal government stated that Mezei was not deprived of due process because his intermittent departure to a third-country was an available alternative to detention pending a final decision on admissibility. The dissenter's response was, "That might mean freedom, if only he were an amphibian!"^[22] In their opinion, Mezei was unjustly detained.^[23] Justice Jackson and Justice Frankfurter then clarified that not all detention pending removal would amount to a deprivation of due process.^[24] Rather, the dissenters stated their opinion that detention without notice or an opportunity for a hearing was contrary to due process.^[25]