Hansen v. Haff
Headline: Court reverses deportation and holds that extra‑marital relations short of concubinage do not make a returning immigrant inadmissible under the 1917 law, allowing her to resume residence and domestic work.
Holding: In a final decision, the Court held that extra‑marital relations short of concubinage do not show a returning immigrant entered for an "immoral purpose" under the 1917 law, and it reversed the deportation order.
- Limits deportations based on past extra‑marital conduct absent concubinage evidence.
- Requires government to show entry purpose was prostitution or similar sexual purpose.
- Keeps returning residents with jobs from automatic exclusion for past immoral acts.
Summary
Background
A woman from Denmark who had lived and worked in Los Angeles as a domestic servant was ordered deported after immigration officials found she had long-standing extra‑marital relations with a married man. She traveled to Europe with that man, returned through Canada and entered at Seattle as a returning resident, registering with him as man and wife, and admitted she intended to continue the relationship until they reached Los Angeles.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether she entered the United States "for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose" under the Immigration Act of 1917. The majority relied on the rule that words following a listed example should be limited to similar things, concluding that "any other immoral purpose" applies to conduct like prostitution or concubinage. Extra‑marital relations that fall short of concubinage were not treated as that kind of admission, and the record showed she returned to her former home intending to resume domestic work. The Court therefore reversed the deportation order.
Real world impact
The decision narrows the category of immigrants excluded for vague "immoral" purposes, requiring the Government to show the entry itself was for prostitution or a similar sexual purpose such as concubinage. Returning residents with past immoral conduct are not automatically deportable without evidence their trip's purpose was sexual or to live as a concubine.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Butler dissented, arguing the Secretary reasonably found she was effectively a concubine and that her long course of relations justified exclusion; he would have upheld deportation.
Opinions in this case:
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?