International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Local
37 v. Boyd case brief summary
347 U.S. 222 (1954)
CASE FACTS
Petitioners brought this suit to enjoin appellee from construing § 212(d)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(d)(7), as to treat aliens domiciled in the continental United States returning from temporary work in Alaska as if they were aliens entering the United States for the first time. Petitioners asserted alternatively that such a construction would be unconstitutional. The lower court heard the suit but dismissed it on the merits.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court vacated the lower court's decision, finding there was no case or controversy for which the court could rule on because no adverse effects had befallen petitioners. Petitioners were merely seeking assurances that a statute did not apply to them in certain hypothetical situations.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
347 U.S. 222 (1954)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners challenged a judgment from
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, which dismissed petitioners' action that sought to enjoin
appellee from construing § 212(d)(7) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(d)(7), in a way that aliens
domiciled in the United States returning from temporary work in
Alaska would be considered as aliens entering the United States for
the first time.CASE FACTS
Petitioners brought this suit to enjoin appellee from construing § 212(d)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(d)(7), as to treat aliens domiciled in the continental United States returning from temporary work in Alaska as if they were aliens entering the United States for the first time. Petitioners asserted alternatively that such a construction would be unconstitutional. The lower court heard the suit but dismissed it on the merits.
DISCUSSION
- The court vacated.
- The case should not have reached the statutory and constitutional questions because there was no case or controversy involved.
- Petitioners, in effect, were asking the courts to assure them that certain sanctions would not apply should certain situations occur.
- Petitioners were not trying to enforce a right, they were only seeking a construction of the statute at hand.
- There had been no adverse effect on petitioners.
- Since there was no controversy the lower court's decision was vacated.
CONCLUSION
The court vacated the lower court's decision, finding there was no case or controversy for which the court could rule on because no adverse effects had befallen petitioners. Petitioners were merely seeking assurances that a statute did not apply to them in certain hypothetical situations.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment