Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Haig Vs. Agee

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 29, 1981

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

78 entries 12 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Urtetiqui Vs. D'Arcy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1835
  2. Costanzo Vs. Tillinghast US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1932
  3. GriffIn Vs. Breckenridge US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1971
  4. Near Vs. Minnesota US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1931
  5. Kennedy Vs. Mendoza-martinez US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1963
  6. Kent Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
  7. Zemel Vs. Rusk US Supreme Court · May 03, 1965
  8. Udall Vs. Tallman US Supreme Court · Mar 01, 1965
  9. Califano Vs. Aznavorian US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1978
    Distinguished
  10. United States Vs. Guest US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1966
  11. Califano Vs. Torres US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1978
  12. Lorillard Vs. Pons US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1978
    Relied / Followed
  13. U.S. 280 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Haig v. Agee
    Search
  14. U.S. 280 (1981) Haig v. Agee
    Search
  15. is one indicator of Executive policy, it suffices that the Executive has openly asserted the power at issue. Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  16. protections reach beyond our national boundaries, respondent's First Amendment claim is without foundation. See Near v. Minnesota
    Search
  17. summary Page 453 U. S. 288 judgment for Agee, and ordered the Secretary to restore his passport. Agee v. Vance
    Search
  18. F.Supp. 729 (DC 1980). B A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Agee v. Muskie
    Search
  19. administrative practice, Zemel v. Rusk
    Search
  20. Id. at 52, 629 F.2d at 86. We granted certiorari sub nom. Muskie v. Agee
    Search
  21. U. S. 290 is important, we begin with the language of the statute. See, e.g., Universities Research Assn. v. Coutu
    Search
  22. that the Secretary has the power to deny a passport for reasons not specified in the statutes. For example, in Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  23. Nemours & Co. v. Collins
    Search
  24. U. S. 46 , 432 U. S. 55 (1977), quoting Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
    Search
  25. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright
    Search
  26. related to foreign policy and national security are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy
    Search
  27. Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  28. Page 453 U. S. 298 1926, adopted the longstanding administrative construction of the 1856 statute. See Lorillard v. Pons
    Search
  29. Udall v. Tallman
    Search
  30. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United
    Search
  31. Erlenbaugh v. United
    Search
  32. NLRB v. Bell
    Search
  33. denials of passports solely on the basis of political beliefs entitled to First Amendment protection. See Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  34. protection accorded beliefs, standing alone, is very different from the protection accorded conduct. Thus, in Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  35. States must be distinguished from the right to travel within the United States. This was underscored in Califano v. Aznavorian
    Search
  36. equivalent to the constitutional right to interstate travel, recognized by this Court for over 100 years. Edwards v. California
    Search
  37. Twining v. New
    Search
  38. Williams v. Fear
    Search
  39. Crandall v. Nevada
    Search
  40. The constitutional right of interstate travel is virtually unqualified, United States v. Guest
    Search
  41. Citations omitted.) Califano v. Torres
    Search
  42. that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  43. Cole v. Young
    Search
  44. protect the secrecy of our Government's foreign intelligence operations plainly serve these interests. Thus, in Snepp v. United
    Search
  45. See also id. at 444 U. S. 511 -513. The Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright
    Search
  46. U.S. at 299 U. S. 320 . Accord, Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman
    Search
  47. See Snepp v. United
    Search
  48. States, supra. On this record, the Government is not required to hold a pre-revocation hearing. In Cole v. Young
    Search
  49. CA App. 65. This language is identical to the clause which we construed in Snepp v. United
    Search
  50. Agee v. Central
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial