The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provisions which purport to deprive an American of his citizenship for draft evasion, automatically and without any prior judicial or administrative proceedings was unconstitutional, because they are essentially penal in character and would inflict severe punishment without due process of law and without the safeguards which must attend a criminal prosecution under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Francisco Mendoza-Martinez (a natural-bornUnited Statescitizen[1]) confessed to the court that he had moved to Mexico (where he also had citizenship status[2]) in 1942 for the purpose of evading the responsibilities of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (for which he served a year in prison[2]). After his release from prison, Mendoza-Martinez was ordered deported on the grounds that he was not a US citizen (part of the Selective Training and Service Act, as amended by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, stripped draft evaders of their citizenship).[3]
Mendoza-Martinez charged that the penalties prescribed by Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act and by Section 349(a)(10) of the Immigration and Nationality Act were in violation of the due process protections granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.[2] The case, heard jointly with Rusk v. Cort, was appealed to the Supreme Court by United States Attorney GeneralRobert F. Kennedy.
Supreme Court decisionEdit
In a five-to-four decision,[2] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendoza-Martinez (but upheld his conviction for draft evasion), upholding the ruling by the Southern District Court of California. The two statutes in question were declared unconstitutional. Speaking for the court, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg stated:
The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit government action.[3]
In other words, the court acknowledged the expanded powers of Congress during wartime, but also ruled that those wartime powers do not permit Congress to circumvent the measures of due process.[1]
^ abKennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372U.S. 144 (1963).
^ abcdOyez Project at Chicago-Kent. "Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez". Retrieved July 16, 2012.
^ ab"Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)". Civil Liberties Online. Duke Law. Retrieved July 16, 2012.[permanent dead link]
External linksEdit
Text of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372U.S. 144 (1963) is available from:JustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
October 21, 2023
kennedy, mendoza, martinez, 1963, supreme, court, united, states, case, which, court, amended, united, states, nationality, with, respect, draft, evasion, supreme, court, united, statesargued, october, 1961reargued, december, 1962decided, february, 1963full, c. Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez 372 U S 144 1963 was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court amended United States nationality law with respect to draft evasion Kennedy v Mendoza MartinezSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued October 10 11 1961Reargued December 4 5 1962Decided February 18 1963Full case nameRobert F Kennedy Attorney General v Francisco Mendoza MartinezCitations372 U S 144 more 83 S Ct 554 9 L Ed 2d 644 1963 U S LEXIS 2095ArgumentOral argumentReargumentReargumentHoldingThe Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provisions which purport to deprive an American of his citizenship for draft evasion automatically and without any prior judicial or administrative proceedings was unconstitutional because they are essentially penal in character and would inflict severe punishment without due process of law and without the safeguards which must attend a criminal prosecution under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments Court membershipChief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black William O DouglasTom C Clark John M Harlan IIWilliam J Brennan Jr Potter StewartByron White Arthur GoldbergCase opinionsMajorityGoldberg joined by Warren Black Douglas BrennanConcurrenceBrennanDissentHarlan joined by ClarkDissentStewart joined by White Contents 1 Background 2 Supreme Court decision 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground EditFrancisco Mendoza Martinez a natural born United States citizen 1 confessed to the court that he had moved to Mexico where he also had citizenship status 2 in 1942 for the purpose of evading the responsibilities of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 for which he served a year in prison 2 After his release from prison Mendoza Martinez was ordered deported on the grounds that he was not a US citizen part of the Selective Training and Service Act as amended by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 stripped draft evaders of their citizenship 3 Mendoza Martinez charged that the penalties prescribed by Section 401 j of the Selective Training and Service Act and by Section 349 a 10 of the Immigration and Nationality Act were in violation of the due process protections granted by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution 2 The case heard jointly with Rusk v Cort was appealed to the Supreme Court by United States Attorney General Robert F Kennedy Supreme Court decision EditIn a five to four decision 2 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendoza Martinez but upheld his conviction for draft evasion upholding the ruling by the Southern District Court of California The two statutes in question were declared unconstitutional Speaking for the court Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg stated The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history for it is then under the pressing exigencies of crisis that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with guarantees which it is feared will inhibit government action 3 In other words the court acknowledged the expanded powers of Congress during wartime but also ruled that those wartime powers do not permit Congress to circumvent the measures of due process 1 See also EditThe Constitution is not a suicide pact The Man Without a Country References Edit a b Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez 372 U S 144 1963 a b c d Oyez Project at Chicago Kent Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez Retrieved July 16 2012 a b Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez 372 U S 144 1963 Civil Liberties Online Duke Law Retrieved July 16 2012 permanent dead link External links EditText of Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez 372 U S 144 1963 is available from Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Kennedy v Mendoza Martinez amp oldid 1180727861, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
