Citation network
Zemel Vs. Rusk
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 03, 1965
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 1 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court Zemel v. RuskSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1965) Zemel v. RuskSearch
-
the Secretary's refusal is based on foreign policy considerations affecting all citizens, is distinguished from Kent v. DullesSearch
-
was improperly convened, for, if the contention is correct, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
conceding -- as all three judges below agreed -- that appellant's Fifth Amendment attack is substantial, cf. Kent v. DullesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
an attack upon an administrative, as opposed to a legislative, policy, and therefore, under cases like Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
court to read it out of the complaint and refuse to convene a three-judge court. Compare William Jameson & Co. v. MorgenthauSearch
-
U. S. 224 . Indeed, we explicitly noted in Kent v. DullesSearch
-
constitutional attack upon two federal statutes, and prays that their operation be enjoined. Cf. Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. EpsteinSearch
-
charged with its administration must be given weight by courts faced with the task of construing the statute. Udall v. TallmanSearch
-
Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
left completely untouched the broad rulemaking authority granted in the earlier Act. Cf. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
This case is therefore not like Kent v. DullesSearch
-
the Secretary's refusal to validate a passport for a given area acts as a deterrent to travel to that area. In Kent v. DullesSearch
-
Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
travel. The right to travel within the United States is, of course, also constitutionally protected, cf. Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
to Cuba denies him rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. His claim is different from that which was raised in Kent v. DullesSearch
-
supra, and Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
United States v. Curtiss-WrightSearch
-
the Executive totally unrestricted freedom of choice. However, the 1926 Act contains no such grant. We have held, Kent v. DullesSearch
-
processes by entertaining actions for injunction or declaratory relief in advance of criminal prosecution. See Evers v. DwyerSearch
-
Public Serv. Comm'n v. WycoffSearch
-
b) must await a concrete fact situation. Compare Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
Florida Lime Growers v. JacobsenSearch
-
Allen v. GrandSearch
-
Douglas v. NobleSearch
-
of the Secretary's authority, cf. Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CerecedoSearch
-
Labor Board v. GullettSearch
-
United States v. MidwestSearch
-
Schachtman v. DullesSearch
-
Bolling v. SharpeSearch
-
Compare Kent v. DullesSearch
-
Korematsu v. UnitedSearch
-
Indeed, it was precisely this sort of consideration which led us to hold in Kent v. DullesSearch
-
at 357 U. S. 126 -127, that the right to travel is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See also Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
is forbidden by some specific constitutional prohibition such as, for example. the First Amendment. See Aptheker v. SecretarySearch
-
Kent v. DullesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Zemel v. RuskSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial