Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bridges Vs. Wixon

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 18, 1945

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

72 entries 8 linked 64 unlinked
Show
  1. Bugajewitz Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · May 12, 1913
  2. Ng Fung Ho Vs. White US Supreme Court · May 29, 1922
  3. Thomas Vs. Collins US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1945
  4. Herndon Vs. Lowry US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1937
  5. Whitney Vs. California US Supreme Court · May 16, 1927
  6. Kessler Vs. Strecker US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1939
  7. Costanzo Vs. Tillinghast US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1932
  8. Zakonaite Vs. Wolf US Supreme Court · Dec 02, 1912
  9. U.S. 135 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  10. U.S. 135 (1945) Bridges v. Wixon
    Search
  11. past affiliation was insufficient for deportation, present membership or present affiliation being required. Kessler v. Strecker
    Search
  12. with the Communist party, and therefore could be deported, the court in United States v. Reimer
    Search
  13. that connection, it must be remembered that, although deportation technically is not criminal punishment ( Johannessen v. United
    Search
  14. Mabler v. Eby
    Search
  15. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333. As stated by Mr. Justice Brandeis speaking for the Court in Ng Fung Ho v. White
    Search
  16. government by force and violence. Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country. Bridges v. California
    Search
  17. do not review the evidence beyond ascertaining that there is some evidence to support the deportation order. Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  18. order of deportation is established where an alien is ordered deported for reasons not specified by Congress. Mabler v. Eby
    Search
  19. may be disregarded because they were not called to the attention of the inspector. It was assumed in Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  20. of impeachment. But they certainly would not be admissible in any criminal case as substantive evidence. Hickory v. United
    Search
  21. United States v. Block
    Search
  22. There has been some relaxation of the rule in alien exclusion cases. See United States ex rel. Ng Kee Wong v. Corsi
    Search
  23. the ordinary rules of evidence in administrative hearings. Yet, as was aptly stated in Interstate Commerce Co mission v. Louisville
    Search
  24. consider what the Attorney General might have ruled on the basis of the other evidence before him. Cf. United States v. Dunton
    Search
  25. proceedings, the alien does not prove he had an unfair hearing merely by proving the decision to be wrong ( Tisi v. Tod
    Search
  26. U. S. 131 , 264 U. S. 133 ) or by showing that incompetent evidence was admitted and considered. Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  27. have been made. Then there is deportation without a fair hearing which may be corrected on habeas corpus. See Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  28. that where a prior statement of an alien, contradictory of testimony made at the hearing, is admitted. See Chan Wong v. Nagle
    Search
  29. of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 673. This amendment set aside this Court's decision in Kessler v. Strecker
    Search
  30. him no constitutional rights, Congress may exclude him in the first instance for whatever reason it sees fit. Turner v. Williams
    Search
  31. right to free speech and free press, and that the Constitution will defend him in the exercise of that right. Bridges v. California
    Search
  32. freedoms that the Constitution guarantees to resident aliens. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in his dissenting opinion in Jones v. Opelika
    Search
  33. of our jurisprudence. It partakes of the very essence of the concept of freedom and due process of law. Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  34. subscribe and of which he may not even be aware. This fact alone is enough to invalidate the legislation. Cf. DeJonge v. Oregon
    Search
  35. test enunciated in Schenck v. United
    Search
  36. not heretofore departed from that rule in reviewing deportation orders upon collateral attack by habeas corpus, Tisi v. Tod
    Search
  37. Vajtauer v. Commissioner
    Search
  38. Page 326 U. S. 167 Costanzo v. Tillinghast
    Search
  39. as it may constitutionally do. Zakonaite v. Wolf
    Search
  40. the Attorney General has exceeded his statutory authority or acted contrary to law or the Constitution. Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  41. Bridges, failed to testify, and that Bridges' failure to call them as witnesses stands unexplained. Interstate Circuit v. United
    Search
  42. in a criminal proceeding is irrelevant here, since a deportation proceeding is not a criminal proceeding. Bugajewitz v. Page
    Search
  43. Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  44. in trials in courts, particularly the hearsay rule, need not be followed in deportation proceedings, Bilokumsky v. Tod
    Search
  45. Tisi v. Tod
    Search
  46. of Immigration, supra, 273 U. S. 106 , more than in other administrative proceedings. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor
    Search
  47. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator
    Search
  48. the evidence in such proceedings are not to its admissibility, but to its probative value. See Consolidated Edison Co. v. Labor
    Search
  49. Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator
    Search
  50. on its face, it is for the administrative officer to determine its credibility and weight. Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial