Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kent Vs. Dulles

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 16, 1958

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

39 entries 5 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Williams Vs. Fears US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1900
  2. Edwards Vs. California US Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1941
  3. Niemotko Vs. Maryland US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1951
  4. United States Vs. Rumely US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1953
  5. Perkins Vs. Elg US Supreme Court · May 29, 1939
  6. U.S. 116 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  7. U.S. 116 (1958) Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  8. S. 881. The Court first noted the function that the passport performed in American law in the case of Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel
    Search
  9. it is also an aid in establishing citizenship for purposes of reentry into the United States. See Browder v. United
    Search
  10. executive construction should be enough, it is said, to warrant the inference that Congress had adopted it. See Allen v. Grand
    Search
  11. United States v. Allen-Bradley
    Search
  12. the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada
    Search
  13. problem of statutory construction with problems that may arise under the war power. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  14. U. S. 579 . In a case of comparable magnitude, Korematsu v. United
    Search
  15. is to be regulated, it must be pursuant to the lawmaking functions of the Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  16. power is delegated, the standards must be adequate to pass scrutiny by the accepted tests. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
    Search
  17. U. S. 388 , 293 U. S. 420 -430. Cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  18. that curtail or dilute them. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283 , 323 U. S. 301 -302. Cf. Hannegan v. Esquire
    Search
  19. See Perkins v. Elg
    Search
  20. Page 357 U. S. 132 This discretionary authority, which we previously acknowledged in Perkins v. Elg
    Search
  21. of the 1952 Act. Cf. United States v. Plesha
    Search
  22. without in any way limiting the discretionary passport power theretofore exercised by the Secretary. See United States v. Allen-Bradley
    Search
  23. Allen v. Grand
    Search
  24. United States v. Cerecedo
    Search
  25. view of that, it would be inappropriate for me, as a dissenter, to consider those questions at this time. Cf. Peters v. Hobby
    Search
  26. U.S. Supreme Court Kent v. Dulles
    Search
  27. of Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel
    Search
  28. the United States. See Browder v. United
    Search
  29. See Allen v. Grand
    Search
  30. See Crandall v. Nevada
    Search
  31. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  32. Korematsu v. United
    Search
  33. of the Congress. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  34. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
    Search
  35. Cf. Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  36. Cf. Hannegan v. Esquire
    Search
  37. Act. Cf. United States v. Plesha
    Search
  38. the Secretary. See United States v. Allen-Bradley
    Search
  39. Cf. Peters v. Hobby
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial