Barber v. Gonzales
United States Supreme Court
347 U.S. 637 (1954)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Gonzales (defendant) was a national of the United States. He was born in the Philippine Islands in 1913 while it was still a United States territory. Gonzales moved to the continental United States in 1930, which was prior to the 1934 Philippine Independence Act. During his time in the US, Gonzales was convicted and sentenced to time in prison for two separate felonies. As a result, Gonzales was subject to an administrative hearing and subsequently ordered to be deported back to the Philippine Islands by Barber (plaintiff), the director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), under § 19(a) of the Immigration Act of 1917. Section 19(a) provided that an alien who “after entry” was sentenced to more than one felony would be subject to deportation. Entry requires arrival from a foreign port or place. Gonzales appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing he was not subject to deportation because he had not made “entry” within the meaning of § 19(a). The district court dismissed the petition. Gonzales appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court. The government appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.