Dissent Douglas | End date 1972 | |
Full case name Richard Gordon Kleindienst, Attorney General, et al. v. Ernest Mandel, et al. Citations 408 U.S. 753 (more)
92 S.Ct. 2576; 33 L.Ed.2d 683 Prior history Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Majority Blackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist Dissent Marshall, joined by Brennan Similar Branzburg v Hayes, Stanley v Georgia, Virginia State Pharmac, Plyler v Doe, Arizona v United States | ||
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody's entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
This action was brought to compel Attorney General Richard Kleindienst to grant a temporary nonimmigrant visa to a Belgian journalist and Marxian theoretician whom the American plaintiff-appellees, Ernest Mandel et al., had invited to participate in academic conferences and discussions in the US. The alien had been found ineligible for admission under 212 (a) (28) (D) and (G) (v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, barring those who advocate or publish "the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism." Kleindienst had declined to waive ineligibility as he has the power to do under 212 (d) of the Act, basing his decision on unscheduled activities engaged in by the alien on a previous visit to the United States, when a waiver was granted.
Impact
Kleindienst v. Mandel was cited by the 9th Circuit three-judge appeals panel on February 9, 2017 in the case of The States of Washington and Minnesota v. Donald J. Trump with regard to an executive order concerning the restriction of immigration from certain stipulated countries. In that case the government relied on language from Mandel that embraces the proposition that "when the Executive exercises' immigration authority 'on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion.'" The court instead held that the Mandel Standard involved a "congressionally enumerated standard" and its application to an individual visa application rather than what it considered to be the "President's promulgation of sweeping immigration policy". They concluded that "courts can and do review constitutional challenges to the substance and implementation of immigration policy."