BARTON v. SENTNER, 353 U.S. 963 (1957)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 353 U.S. 963
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/963/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/963/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
BARTON v. SENTNER , 353 U.S. 963 (1957)
353 U.S. 963
Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11, appellant,
v.
Antonia SENTNER.
No. 728.
Antonia SENTNER, appellant,
v.
Lewis D. BARTON, District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, District No. 11.
No. 784.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 20, 1957
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney, and Beatrice Rosenberg, for Barton.
Mr. Sydney L. Berger, for Sentner.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed. See United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194. They would note jurisdiction of this appeal and afford the Attorney General an apportunity to present the Government's side of this important internal security problem. United States v. Witkovich, supra, in which they dissented, limited 242(d)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 211, as amended, 8 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) 1252(d)(3), 8 U.S. C.A. 1252(d)(3), 'to authorizing all questions reasonably calculated to keep the Attorney General Advised regarding the continued availability for departure of aliens ....' It passed on clause (3) and no other. This appeal involves other clauses of 242(d), namely, clauses (1) and (4), neither of which was passed on in Witkovich. The Court, by summary affirmance of this appeal, without argument, enlarges its holding in Witkovich and strikes down two more clauses of 242(d). These two clauses are vital to the effectuation of the purpose of the Congress in controlling subversives whose ordered deportation has been forestalled by technical difficulties. For a more detailed discussion see their dissent in Witkovich. Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice CLARK dissent.[ Barton v. Sentner 353 U.S. 963 (1957) ]
Full Text of Opinion