Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Background

Two resident aliens challenged deportation orders. Sherman, who came from Poland in 1920, was accused of re-entering in 1938 under another name and relied on a decades-old witness identification. Woodby, who entered from Germany in 1956 as the wife of an American soldier, admitted brief prostitution in 1957 but said it was due to duress and disputed continued misconduct. Administrative officers and the Board of Immigration Appeals reached findings but did not consistently state what burden of proof the Government had to meet.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether Congress had fixed the degree of proof for deportation. It concluded statutory phrases about “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” govern judicial review, not the Government’s burden at the administrative hearing. Comparing deportation to denaturalization and expatriation, the Court emphasized the severe consequences of removal and held that the Government must establish deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.

Real world impact

The decision raises the proof the Government must supply before ordering deportation and applies to all deportation cases regardless of how long a person has lived here. The Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments in these cases and remanded them for further proceedings consistent with the higher proof standard. The ruling will require immigration authorities and courts to reexamine records and possibly develop clearer factual showings before deporting resident aliens.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Clark (joined by Justice Harlan) dissented, arguing the Court overruled Congress by replacing the statutory “reasonable, substantial, and probative” standard with its own rule, and raised procedural concerns about timing and burdens in Woodby.