United States Ex Rel. Volpe v. Smith
Headline: Immigrant who left and returned is deportable; Court upheld removal for an Italian resident convicted of counterfeiting, ruling a later reentry counts as an “entry” under the 1917 immigration law, allowing deportation to proceed.
Holding:
- Allows deportation of immigrants who leave and reenter after prior criminal convictions.
- Affirms Congress’s power to set entry conditions for noncitizens.
- Permits immigration officials to carry out deportation orders despite officer reassignment.
Summary
Background
A man who came from Italy at age sixteen in 1906 lived in the United States as an alien for many years. He pleaded guilty in 1925 to counterfeiting—described in the record as a crime involving moral turpitude. In 1928 he briefly went to Cuba without a passport and returned by airplane to Key West, where an immigration inspector admitted him. In 1930 the Secretary of Labor issued a warrant charging he was unlawfully in the country because of his criminal conviction, and immigration authorities placed him in custody. Lower federal courts rejected his habeas corpus challenge and ordered deportation.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the word “entry” in the 1917 Immigration Act includes a later coming into the United States after leaving, not just the first arrival. The Court concluded that “entry” means any coming from a foreign country, whether the first or a later one. The opinion relied on Congress’s broad power to set terms for entry and cited earlier decisions about what “entry” commonly means. The Court rejected the claim that the case had to be dismissed because the particular immigration officer named was no longer stationed where he had been.
Real world impact
The ruling allows immigration authorities to treat a return from abroad as a fresh entry for purposes of deportation when the returning person has a qualifying criminal conviction. Long-term residents who leave and then try to come back may lose a protection they would have kept by staying. The decision affirms that deportation orders may be carried out even if the named officer has moved, and leaves in place the order affirmed by the lower courts.
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?