Boutilier v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Background

A Canadian man first admitted in 1955 later applied for citizenship and disclosed a history of homosexual conduct and a 1959 arrest. In 1964 the Public Health Service certified that, at the time of his admission, he "was afflicted with a class A condition, namely, psychopathic personality, sexual deviate," and deportation proceedings followed. At administrative hearings some psychiatrists agreed he had been homosexual for years, though a few said that did not make him a "psychopathic personality." The core dispute became whether Congress intended the statutory phrase to include homosexuals and whether that phrase was unconstitutionally vague.

Reasoning

The Court examined the statute’s legislative history and the Public Health Service reports, which stated the phrase should cover homosexuals and other sexual deviates. The majority concluded Congress used "psychopathic personality" to effectuate exclusion of homosexuals rather than as a narrow clinical diagnosis. Because the record showed a continuous pattern of homosexual conduct before entry and the exclusion focuses on characteristics at the time of entry, the Court held the statute was not unconstitutionally vague in this context and affirmed the deportation order.

Real world impact

The ruling confirms that noncitizens who were homosexual at arrival may be excluded or deported under this medical exclusion. The decision makes the time of entry the decisive moment for exclusion and does not base deportation on later conduct. The outcome may turn on factual findings and medical opinions in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, warning the phrase is vague and could be used to brand unpopular people; they emphasized expert disagreement and urged clearer standards and fuller hearings.