Phillippides v. Day
Headline: Court upheld deportation of a Greek seaman, rejecting his three‑year time‑limit claim and allowing authorities to remove seamen who desert and stay past permitted periods.
Holding:
- Allows officials to deport seamen who desert and overstay allowed time.
- Clarifies that the 1924 immigration law applies to all aliens including seamen.
- Resolves a split among federal appeals courts in favor of deportation authority.
Summary
Background
A native of Greece arrived in New York as a seaman on September 10, 1925, deserted his ship, and stayed in the United States. He was arrested on December 19, 1928, and ordered deported under the Immigration Act of 1924 for remaining longer than allowed. He argued that an older 1917 law limited arrests for deportation of alien seamen to three years after entry. The District Court and the Second Circuit rejected his claim, and another appeals court had reached a contrary result, so the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the three‑year arrest limit in the 1917 law protected a seaman who deserted and overstayed after the 1924 law took effect. The Court said the 1924 Act’s provision that "any alien" who remained longer than permitted is deportable plainly includes seamen, and that the 1917 statute’s three‑year limit does not override the 1924 law. The opinion noted that the seaman deserted after the 1924 law was in effect and that regulations gave permitted seamen only sixty days, so the later law’s clear terms must govern. The Court affirmed the deportation order.
Real world impact
The decision confirms that seamen who desert and remain past the time allowed by the 1924 immigration rules can be deported and cannot rely on the older three‑year arrest limitation. The ruling resolves a disagreement among appeals courts by applying the 1924 law to all aliens, including seamen, and lets immigration authorities enforce deportation under that law.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?