Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

353 U.S. 963

Barton 11 v. Sentner

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1957-05-20

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (§ 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on United States v. Witkovich

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1957-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1990 · most notably Beilan v. Board of Public Education School District of Philadelphia (1958), Karl Ziegler, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (1973)

20 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

18019571960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Antonia SENTNER, appellant,

v.

Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States

Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11.

No. 784.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 1957

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, and Beatrice Rosenberg, for Barton.

Mr. Sydney L. Berger, for Sentner.

PER CURIAM.

¶2

They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an apportunity to present the Government's side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited § 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 1252(d)(3), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(3), 'to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General Advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens .' It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of § 242(d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of § 242(d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich.

¶3

Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK dissent.

/353/us/963 · .json · Public domain