Ackermann v. United States

Background

Hans and Frieda Ackermann, German natives who became U.S. citizens in 1938, ran a German-language newspaper with a relative, Max Keilbar. In 1942 the Government sued to cancel their citizenship. After a joint trial, separate judgments on December 7, 1943, cancelled their citizenship. Keilbar appealed and won; the Ackermanns did not appeal. Hans was detained in an immigration detention station and, in 1948, the Ackermanns filed a motion under the federal rule that can reopen final judgments (Rule 60(b)) to set aside the cancellation.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the District Court should have granted relief under Rule 60(b). It explained that relief for simple neglect must be sought within one year, so that ground was unavailable. The Ackermanns instead asked for relief under the rule’s catchall provision for other extraordinary reasons. The Court compared their case to a prior decision where extreme imprisonment and lack of counsel justified reopening a judgment, and found the Ackermanns’ situation different. They had counsel, were tried in open court, had property and options to use a co-defendant’s appeal record, and made a deliberate decision not to appeal. The Court concluded that reliance on advice from a government official who was not in a fiduciary role did not create the extraordinary circumstances needed for relief, and affirmed denial of the motion.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the 1943 cancellations in place and restricts reopening similar old judgments. It signals that courts will require truly extraordinary facts, not mere mistaken reliance on an official or later hindsight, before setting aside final denaturalization orders.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black (joined by Justices Frankfurter and Douglas) dissented, arguing the motions alleged reliance on a Government custodian and poverty sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing and possible relief under the broad purpose of Rule 60(b).