Commissioner of Immigration of Port of NY v. Gottlieb

310

Syllabus.

uniformity of regulation. Such uniformity, even though it-be the unif6rmity of governmental nonactibn, may be highly necessary to preserve equality of opportunity and treatment among the various communities and States concerned. See, for example: Welton v. Missouri, 91

U. S. 275, 282; Hag v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, 490.

That some or all of the distributing companies are op- erating under state or municipal franchises cannot affect the question.

It is enough to say that the Supply Com- pany is not so operating and is not made a patty to these franchises by merely doing business with the franchise holders.

No. 155 Affirmed.

No. 188 Reversed.

No. 187 Affirmed.

No . 221. Argued -Apr 15, 16, 1924.-Decided May 26, 1924

1. When the plan words of a statute leave no room for construction,

the courts must follow it, however harsh the consequences. P. 313.

2. Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 and § 2(d) of the Quota

Law of 1921, as amended May 11, 1922; are both operative and should be construed as acts in par! materia. P. 312.

3. Sebtion 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, after an enumeration

of excluded classes ending with the natives of a designated part of Asia and those of certain islands adjacent to that continent, de- clares that "the provision nixt foregoing" shall not apply to per- sons of various named occupations, including ministers of religion,. -nor -to their legal wives or their children under 18 years, etc.

Hdd, that the exception applies only to aliens coming from Asiatie regions referred to. P. 313.

4. Section 2(d) of the Quota Act provides that'when the

*ax imum number of aliens of any nationality shall have been admitted,

COMMR. OF IMMIGRATION v. GOTTLIEB. 311 310

Opinion of the Court.

all others of such nationality. applying during the same year shall be excluded, except (inter alios) ministers of religion, and gives preference, so far as possible, in the enforcement of the act, to the wives, children, etc., of citizens of the United States, of aliens here who have applied for citizens.hip, or of'persons eligible to citizenship who have served in our military or naval forces.

Held, that the wife and child of a minister haveno right to ad- mission when the quota allowed "their nationality is exhausted.

285 Fed. 295, reversed. •

Cm RoRm to a judgment-of the Circuit Court of 'Ap-" peals affirming a judgment of the District Court discharg- ing two aliens by habeas corpus.

Mr. George Ross Hull, Special Assistant to the Attor- ney General, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. L-ouis Marshall, with whom Mr. Joseph G. M.

Browne, Mr. Barnet E. Kopelman, Mr. J. Philip Berg and Mr. Max J. Kohler weie on the briefs; for respond- ents.

Mit. JusTic, Su sRxLA=qr delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondents are the wife and infant son 6f Solo- mon Gottlieb, a rabbi of a synagogue in New Yorl! City.- .They" are natives of Palestine who sought admission t6 this country in December, 1921.

After a hearing before the Board of Special Inquiry at Ellis Isind, they were ordered deported, on the ground that.the quota of immigrants entitled to be ad.itted had- already been fVhed. Ujyoi habeas coipus'pioceedings in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York it was held they were entitled to admission, irresleetive of quota limitations, as the wife and child of a minister, who was already here under § 2 (d) of the Act of May 19, 1921, c. 8, 42 Stat. 5, as amended May 11, 1922, c. 187, 42

312

Opinion of the Court.

Stat. 540. Thereupon they were ordered discharged. -This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

285 Fed. 295.

That court reached its conclusion by considering § 3. of the Act of 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874, 875, in pari materia with § 2 (d) of the Act of 1921. Section 3 of the earlier act enumerates various classes of aliens who are excluded from admission into the United States, among them all. persons from certain Asiatic territory with specified ex- ceptions. The Act of 1921, as. amended, is an act to liniit the number of aliens who may be admitted under the immigration laws to the United States, and is de- clared to be "in addition to and not in substitution for the'provisions of the immigration laws." § '4. Section 2 (d), among other things, provides that when the max- imum number of aliens of any nationality shall have been admitted, all others of such nationality applying during the same year shall be excluded, except as otherwise pro- vided -in the act. Following this, one of the provisos enumerates the aliens who are thus excepted, among them, ministers of any religious denomination. Another proviso is: "That in the enforcement of this Act pref- erence shall be given so far as.possible to the wives, par- ents, brothers, sisters, children under eighteen years of age, and fianc6es, (1) of citizens of the United States, (2) of aliens now in tie United States who have applied, for .citizenship in the manner provided by law, or (3) of persons eligible to United States citizenship -who served inthe military or naval forces of the United States," etc.

The court below, takdng these various provisions to- gether, held that under § 3 of the Act of .1917, these. respondents were entitled to admission. -

The lower court was right inholding that the acts are Oz par! materia, and that § 3 of the. earlier act is still "fully operatbiie and may be considered as though it formed -a Iart, of .the later iet. The question then is

COMMR. OF IMMIGRATION v. GOTTLIEB. 313 310

Opinion of the Court.

whether it includes aliens occupying the status of these respondents. The case, as the evidence shows, is one of peculiar and distressing hardship and it is not unnatural that any .appropriate canon of construction should be laid hold of to justify a conclusion favorable to the re- spondents. But if the plain words of the statute -are against such a conclusion, leaving no room for construc- tion, the courts have no choice but to follow it, without regard to the consequences. Chung Fobk v. White, 264

U. S. 443; Zartariam v. Billings, 204 U. S. 170; Low Wah

Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460, 476. Section 3 of the Act of 1917 defines and enumerates th6 classes of aliens who are to be excluded-idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded per- sons, paupers, professional beggars, diseased, persons, criminals, polygamists, anarchists, prostitutes; and nu- merous others, the last in the enumeration being natives of islands not possessed by the United States adjacent "to the continent of Asia and of the continent within cer- tain desbribed limits of latitude and longitude. The clause relied upon immediately follows: "The provision next foregoing, however, shall not apply to persons of the following status or occupations: Government officers, ministers or religious teachers, missionaries, lawyers, physicians, chemists, civil engineers, teachers, students, authors, artists, merchants, and travelers for curiosity or pleasure, nor to their legal wi.tves or their children .under sixteen years'of age who shall accompany them or who subsequently may apply for admission 'to the United States.

The limited scope of this exception is apparent and no amount of discussion could make it plainer. It applies to "the provision next foregoing," namely, to that deal- ing wit.. aliens coming from the barred Asiatic zone, and to that only.

Section 2 (d) of the Quota Law of 1921, as amended, in -terms, permits the admission of " aliens returning from a

.314

Opinion of the Court.

temporary visit abroad, aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, mini.sters of any religious "denomination, professors for colleges :or seminaries, * aliens belonging to any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as domestic servants," notwithstanding the quota of the same nationality has been filled. Then follows the further prdviso already quoted that i the en- forcement of the act "preference shall be given so far as possible to the wives . . . children," etc., of certain enumerated classes.

The respondents are not natives of -te barred Asiatic zone and, therefore, are not entitled to admission under the-exception in the Act of 191. There is nothing in the later Act of 1921, as amended, which gives the wife or children of a miniter any right of entry beyond that en- joyed by aliens generally, unless he falls within one of the classes specified in the proviso to §.2 (d), in which event "they are to be given preference over. other aliens within the limits of the quota. The quota having been ex- hausted, no case was presented calling for the applicatioh of the proviso, even if the respondents could otherwise have been brought within its terms. The contention that it is absurd and unreasonable to say that the wives and children of ministers from the barred Asiatic zone are to be admitted and those outside of it denied admission, does not require consideration, since the result we have stated necessarily follows from the plain words of the law, for which we are not at liberty to substitute a rule based upon other notions of policy or justice. That aliens from one part of the world shall be admitted according to their.

status and those from another part according to fixed numerical proportions, is a matter wholly within the dis- cretion of the lawmaking body, with which the courts have no authority to interfere.

Reversed