Costanzo v. Tillinghast
287 U.S. 341 (1932)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341 (1932)

Costanzo v. Tillinghast

No. 110

Argued November 17, 18, 1932

Decided December 5, 1932

287 U.S. 341

Syllabus

1. Where, in a proceeding in habeas corpus challenging the legality of an order of deportation under the Immigration Act of 1917, it appears that the action of the Secretary of Labor in issuing the order was supported by evidence, his findings are not subject to review by the courts. P. 287 U. S. 342.

Page 287 U. S. 342

2. Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 imposes no period of limitation with respect to the deportation of an alien found managing a house of prostitution, and an alien may be taken into custody and deported for this cause at any time after entry. P. 287 U. S. 343.

3. Rules of syntax should not be so applied in construing a statute as to defeat the evident legislative intent. P. 287 U. S. 344.

4. A statute must be considered in its entirety in order not to give undue effect to particular words or clauses. P. 287 U. S. 345.

5. The failure of Congress to alter or amend a statute, notwithstanding a consistent construction by the department charged with its enforcement, creates a presumption in favor of the administrative interpretation which is entitled to great weight. P. 287 U. S. 345.

56 F.2d 566 affirmed.

Certiorari to review the affirmance of a decree dismissing a writ of habeas corpus.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.