Cross v. United States
Headline: Court affirms that a federal court clerk cannot collect extra fees for making sealed triplicate copies of naturalization declarations, limiting payment to the specific fees listed in the Naturalization Act.
Holding: The Court held that the clerk was not entitled to charge additional fees for making and sealing triplicate copies of declarations of intention, because the Naturalization Act lists allowed fees and expressly forbids extra charges.
- Stops clerks from charging extra fees for naturalization paperwork not specified by the law.
- Requires clerks to provide copies and sealed documents without extra charge when requested by the immigration bureau.
- Blocks use of the general copying statute (§828) to get additional payment in naturalization cases.
Summary
Background
The lawsuit was brought by the clerk of the United States District and Circuit Courts for the District of Rhode Island, who sought to recover money for making triplicate copies of original declarations of intention for naturalization and for attaching the court seal to those copies at the direction of the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization. The court below rejected the clerk’s claim, and the appeal asked whether certain provisions of the Naturalization Act and a general fee statute allowed the clerk to collect those charges.
Reasoning
The Court focused on §§ 12, 13, and 21 of the Naturalization Act of June 29, 1906, and on § 828 of the Revised Statutes. Section 12 describes duties of clerks to keep and send copies and to furnish certified copies when requested by the Bureau. Section 13 lists specific fees for receiving declarations, filing petitions, and entering final orders. Section 21 expressly forbids clerks from demanding any fees in naturalization proceedings other than those the statute specifies. The Court said that either view offered by the clerk—(1) that the copy duty was not covered by § 12 and so the general fee statute § 828 applied, or (2) that the duty was covered by § 12 but §13 did not list payment so §828 should supply it—conflicted with § 21. Because §21 bars any additional charges beyond the fees enumerated, the clerk could not collect the claimed amounts.
Real world impact
The judgment was affirmed, meaning clerks cannot use the general copying statute to charge extra for naturalization paperwork when the Naturalization Act does not list such fees. Requests by the Bureau for copies or sealed documents cannot be turned into additional charges beyond the Act’s listed fees.
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?