Brief for the United States — Travis v. United States

Supreme Court brief1967

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Page

a ett (f

Questions sceemeaiinds Zsichadhacisacahididenale bun 2

Statutes, proclamations, executive, oniens and

} | 3

é “American sitizens wi leave the United

States during, a national; emergency |

= bound for. destination with respect

«to -which..their . paesports. are: invalid

violate Bertin 345(b). of. She, lanenigre:. ;°

tion and Nationality Act__-_ .-_=. «10

A. The language of Section. 215(b).

is broad enough to cover vio-

lations of area restrictions ---- 12

B. The legislative history and ad-°** ”

ministrative interpretation of

Section. 215(b) - are“ consistent

. with’ its application! td - viola>*\

tions of area restrictions/_/.-"' 20

punishable - -

II. Section Snr may pone eee ra

applied to violations of ‘area Trestric-’

toms. se 22 2 waidelsa oevetots > sworA = gg

«cua. The prohibition upon’ travelto,

vs | .. designated’ ateas dées net ¥id-\_-

C8 re Fgh gegen on

ag he AS FE Pag Ag oF ts

232-642 66 ——1 @

eee

f i.

B. Section 2 Chg does not hpi

Page

missibly delegate legislative.

ws AITOL “85

ll del Ee ee ee ee ee |

IIL The failure to cit Section 215(b) in the

statute inapplicable__. 222-262. 2 104"

a TV. A state of national emergency had been

‘declared -and it existed at the time of

petitioner Travis’ departures... ... 2.)

" Vi Petitioner Travis Violated Section’215(b) _

¥ re

~~.

ike

saci

even though she didnot obtain Cuba’s

\box “permission to enter that country until

after ‘her departures from the United

States... bara ese ioee ey

ee] a?

. raft

hy ae S173 ;

base bee daewoo nwee cece sso eaewe ecco

cf > 1f .

Ce Or ee eo oie ee oo

Savy OF ODO ,

Douds,

B39. ce O° ean riaadeenealead anes

Bowie y. City of Columbia, 378°U.S. 347... . --

+ Ben ¥

Kant ¥-Dule,

v. United States; 338 U8. ig is

» & Southern Ain Lines, Inc. v. Water-

Corp;; 333 U.S. 1032....-..-.-..

rade: Commission v. Dean Foods Co.,

Pialbsioctge vos 8,

‘vi United States, 355 U.S. Baki

16243. seas aese Pee es es

07 $6

35, 41

27, 28

* 82

Cases—Continued heute oe ,290913 ee

0} © United - States» wv. Ctirtis-W right, Corp,;; 299

U.S. 304) <2 - dpi - 4e LS. a9 b--s¥ be joox!| 41

lf United States V. Healy, 376 US. T5028 caer 17

United States 'y.. duPont &Coi,\353- U.S.)686..°) 27

United States v. Philadelphia. National Bank,

$740.8. 3200 20S aotlincelwecl ievetbien) 27

‘Uwntted States v. Pink, 315. US: 20B-sy-o0ct- ° 41

Urietiqui v. D’ Arey):9: Pets, G92 ui Leis golive! 13

‘\ Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 389 U8./33...- 27

%° Worthy v. United States, 328. F, 2d.386,1.i-); 16

Cc Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. Sree ere r 6,

, 1,9,10, 14 715,'20, 33334, 35

Statutes, executive orders, - proclamations ‘ lands

-- regulations: §. 68 s.1.5: Se

Act of May 2241918, 40 Stat. 659... 120, 21,22, 23

-< SiAgt of June 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 25202 20-1 4-260, 24

\< Immigration and Nationality. Act. of 1952, 66°

be Stat. 163, ef seq.: AE.86 51.7.9 ©

é_.,. Bee. 101(30), as ssa ol (8. T8Ge:

G6 Pe tibinmncimuiakedin: b$.ALA LO 13, 15

ei Bes 215 (8°U,S.C. 1185). 8,10/36)37,'38;39, 40

Bec.!255(a) (B'U.S.C. 1486(a))aicacisuasCB7, 45

He ees 215(b).(8 U.S.C. 1185(b))-....coze 2,

FL OS) BYE 5/6, 78592050 Ly 12, 13;14,05, 16,

“een 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26:27,:28; 29, 30,

be __.. 81, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37)A1,-42) 43,42)

& |. See, 215(e) (8 U.S.C. 118506) .2:4- 1.0'86;87, 47

ate See, 56 (8.0.8.0. 2186(d)oiia’ sided 47

Sec. 215(e) (8 U.S.C. 1185(e)) - - -somutlooei MB

sh Seo SUEY (8 UiS-Cp4485 (A) ial Lait 0 48

(ofee) 2152) (BMSCiI4IBHM@))at i oso 848

[S Passport-Act.oh19262) 2hS9-3bC8 2018-119

sn@edBbinssauel - io _ tape _ 108,80, 28, $5, 45

OS Gb... Bee Mita ss sss cb ee (ShOr) 12

BN GS | pines Ree ei apy gecpaplas tyr pi 4X

“ LG te Lee » 4 RRA eee etapa ce gen a 27

18 UBC. 1641-1046. 2. 222 eee 15

IS UBS. 1006.0 cones cesnsn gs art: ean 16

Tahiruveaerdens (3 Fed. Reg. 681) 2-22, 3, 49

‘* Executive Order 10896 @ C.F.R. (1960

vi Supp.) 80}o. sictuw se alu. eso ses 41

SS Executive Order 11087 (6 CER (1962 Sine)

Sooo inpetes cawinisnolal ove zatadlisus 41

ve Presidential Proclamation 2914, 64 Stat. A454

.* (Dees, TOO) oF Sib bi wc 232k 39, 41, 49

Presidential Proclamation 3004, 67 Stat. C31

(June 17, 1953)... Bos Vels alpaca duce 50

1 CF Biter C1 ACS otidotiathh 22 usc 38

1 OAR ORO. Sowsis Jk Rowand chi 39

OPC Wa Rts Sade Ui cue cide Saks 53

IPOF RvSS.8i iui csee US 22 BLISS WI wake 53

92 C.F RGG Ba. sa carieca: Jrsce 2 ucddo 18, 38, 54

S SRP OWA SOS). ie 0. BU oo ea dole 54

“AS? GRR, -63.2(6)si2ic 2 ac 5, 30, 42, 54

22°C.F.R. SO.Ilo). LisvoiiwZ_bes aa Beer Ps pars

23 CFR. GDh)... ym EAL aie

93 OAR. SB.Brtiuwue. 2a AL ah.

692 CER. 53.6. -.-.----------{ GELIOtL....

US » rT Sees. aces. donk Di daive aha ow 24,

+ ‘Depaktmental eee — 811 (4 Fed. ae.

" Departinental Regulation 108.456 (26 Fed.

06 Wee, Was, San so AE SR EEL Sok

6 Fed. Reg. oh at Oso an SEE

iY “22 Fed. Reg. 20886... 22. LECCE Sa

vh Public Notive 170 (26 O.F.R. QOD iE nk: 3,

‘Miscellaneous:

*) 9 Am. J, Int’lL. (Spec: Supp. 1915). 883 is sa

a 56 Cong. Rec. 6029-6032, 6061-6068 (House),

6191-6195, 6246-6248 (Senate). 2ibieccuys 21

Sp Hatkworth, Digest of International, Law

i y Beeee

af = ons ARF

Miscellaneous—Continued Z Pes

Hearings on the Immigration and Nationality

Act. before a Subcommittee of the House

Committee on the Judiciary, 84th Cong.;

Hearings on’ the Right to Travel before the

Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of

the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

85th Cong., Ist Sess. (1957) __......--.--- 29

Hearings before the Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations on Department of State

Passport Policies, 85th Cong., Ist Sess.

(R608) Seo ea eee 14, 22, 24

H. Rep. No. 485, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (1918) - - 20

S. Rept. No. 431, 65th Cong., 2d Sess. (1918) - - 20

State Department Press Release No. 24,

sammnny 16, TOG hore kc cnncsccnces 4

State Department Press Release No. 341,

May 1, 1952, 26 Dept. of State Bull. 736__ 25, 28

«3

_—

(€ = pitt { ~ . ; - : . « : ao “sf .

[ifeer! haa ai Fy it? itif : : Ah 43 J fa iti

hate) Fo. 92 to

rhe Sayre ent of he Wael Snes

- Oorosmn TERM, 1966 SIT-V0r STi

ee No. 61 :

| Hina Mace Lav Tea, erm corr

. ae : ; c™ ‘iris stlet TO}

Gat tod Uso Stam Anoace jitter ed?

aii) oo8i-y SPT TTS ews Tt RQeree

‘101 WAM OR ORBTIORADL FO ZAM UNIERD RTETER COURT’ [

OF APPEALS rng NIVTH OIBOUIT

ie I

it iT ih sobi0 bol T—.8ir 0%

. is G i. aoe on if te “No. 76. i? J ntotbar

Uwrrep Stumm or Ascmuca, arrnsane

yt { i ) aid B see d001 US If

APE. .2.1J Len ‘Levi Dave, ef at 0 :

reve Wail rocgys eta h« cs eins to noi} 4b;

us “Or ApPral FROM THR UNITED STATES pisaicr count

gite or THA. a en DISTRIOT OF niviti| YORE :..

TTT vt th I ait rf mn ry oq ;

Som oD ma

cocy proottPris4s Bore tq’ BLOty “eg

Rirdigmgak ly dri et .

* al a

ant Ad iors 95 TODA Quests ,

®, RS art, distam ne SS

“TR? repo he pind ro in thie On a

CASE iene sense in No, 176.

;? i ry qi) . . ‘ i : 2g A

in No. 176 (LR. 5-7) is unreported. The opinion

of the district’ court in the related case of United

States. Laub, (LR. 8962) is reported at 253 F. Supp.

433. The opinion of the court of appeals in No. 67

(TR. 109-112) is reported at 353 F. 24 506.

No. 67.—The judgment of the court of appeals (TR.

1J2) was entered on November 19, 1965, and a petition

for rehearing was denied on January 4, 1966 (TR. 133).

The petition for a writ-of certiorari was filed on Janu-_

ary 28, 1966, and was granted on April 18, 1966 (TR.

113; °384 U.S. 908). ‘The jurisdiction of this Court

rests upon 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

‘ No. 176—The district court’s order dismissing the

indictment was entered on May 5, 1966 (LR. 5-7).

A notice of: direet appeal ‘to: this Court was filed on

May 20, 1966 (LR. 63), and this Court noted probable

jurisdiction on June.13, 1966, (LR.,64; 384 U.S. 984).

The jurisdiction of this Court rests upon 18 U.S.C. 3731

because, the, district.court’s dismissal.of the indictment

was “based’ upon the * * * construction of the statute

upon which -_ indictment *~*~* is founded.”’

~“QgESTIONs PRESENTED ~~

ee ee a ee ee

The questions presented in both cases are:

A Whether \ violations of area restrictions upon in-

ternational travel imposed by the Secretary ‘of State

Fond r puntishab junder Section 215(b) ‘of the

am anid Nationality ‘Act ‘Of 1982, a0: om

1185¢by. _— _ fi iress hein initg edt etassnqe: “IT? *

OT oF at bi

owt edd etmeest “Hil” base

Section 215(b), if se pee icnenon a

to taossrosht Pelt tit beaters read PELE

. Additional questions presented in.No. 67 ares) 0?

1, Whether. Section, 215(b). applies;-to travel: te.

the restriction upon travel to that area. ©... bedeil

\ 2, Whether ‘the President properly declared a-state

of ‘national. emergency: — the: or

area restrictions. bibviens 8a

_3. Whether polio violated Section, 215¢b)., by

leaving the United States for Mexico with the.inten-

tion of traveling to mcnarcoarssec aN ae

her, and by thereafter traveling to Cuba, | i ter Sarttorhk

- STATOTES, PROCLAMATIONS, EXECUTIVE Sil AND

* oc BEGULATIONS INVOLVED .. ~ © * SEB

The statutes, proclamations, executive ndete aid

ene ie eNeE ereree e

rps Ml mn amen rT}

Om. Ook

wa i

nied

232-642 66-2

—

eétipanion press release (Préss Release No. 24; pp.

56-57, «nfra) stated that the Department of State com

templated granting exceptions to these travel restric-

tions for “persons ‘whose travel may be regarded as

as newsmen or businessmen with estab-

lished business -interests.”. On January 18; 1961, the

Secretary issued Departmental Regulation 108.456

(26: Ped. Reg. 482) which, by amending 22 C.F.R.

53.3, excluded Cuba from the countries of North,

ee ee ee nae

PUN te sist Tequired: »

gh spate ila taal ee Gon

dictment in theUnited States District Court for the

departed from the United States for Cuba via Mexico

without a passport valid for Cuba, in violation of Sec-

tion 245(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

of 1952, 8 U.S:C. 1185(b) (TR. 1-2). Waiving trial

by jury (TR. 48-49), she was tried on stipulated facts

(TR. 49-52), and was convicted on both counts. (TR.

401)... She was. sentenced te concurrent suspended

six-month terms. of imprisonment on, each count and

to; pay, a, total fine of $1,000 (TR, 102-103). The

aaa of appeeis affirmed | Me conviction SBR. 109-

$-——-88 --€28-E5¢

He ete ae meet wen

frem"Mexico to Cuba if such permission were granted.

(shtd,). She did not then possess a passport spe-

cifieally. endorsed. for travel to Cuba,’ and she knew

of 22 CPR, 533(b) (p. 54, nfra), whiehthen ex-

cluded Cuba fpom: the areas of the Western Hemi-

sphere for which no passport is required (TR. 5a).

Qn each occasion, some time after arriving in Mexico,

ceived from them permission to enter Cuba. She

then boarded a plane which left from the Central

Airport in Mexico to bhuvana, Quba (TR. 50-52)..

While in Cuba she traveled, observed and took photo-

graphs, and subsequently reported on her trips to

various groups in the United States (TR. 51-52).

- No. 176.—Appellees. were charged in a one-count

indietment:.filed in. the United States District Court

for the Eastern District. of New York with conspiring

to violate Section 215(b). of the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C..1185(b), by indue-

pf American citizens who did not possess passports

“**The stipulation states only that “[a]t no time (ertinent or

the Repu

ee i ee SPL is to Ww

~ $4) sit parbbedtie bara 4) Sedtinh poisesip salt veers

valid for travel to that country (LR/1-2):° The in-

dietment alleged that it was part of ‘the appellees’

conspiracy to promote and solicit such unlawful travel

tion to Cuba “by way of Europe’’ ‘(LR.°2).. In-re-

sponse to’ a motion for a bill of particulars, it was

solicited possessed “‘uriexpired and unrevoked United

States passports which * * * had not been specifically

pone a sear. asain ae ya ies

Cuba” (LR. 4).

- Thé district court granted appellees’ motion’ to dis-

miss thé indictthent (LR. 5-7), incorporating into its

judgment by reference its opinion in United States

v. Laub, a companion’ case involving two of the ap-

pellees and two other defendants, who had been in-

dicted on a similar charge relating to an earlier trip

to Guba (LR. 8-62). In thatease, which had been

tried before the same district judge without a jury,

the court had acquitted the defendants on the

ground that departures from the United States with

unexpired and unrevoked passports do not violate

Section 215(b) even if the. departing individuals

contemplate travel to an area upon whieh a restriction

ii Se ebiclotgiag pnibcasaaagta samme

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

as oe

Anim Aomet.-. Rusk, 381.08, i; this Genie sts

tairied the power of the Secretary of State to refuse

to validate passports for travel to Cuba, but it re-

served the question whether an individual who de-

“\

-parts {the United. States to engage in sueh. travel

violates Section 215(b).of the Immigration. and Na-

tionality Act. of. 1952, -381.. U.S. at (18-20. The

language of Section 215(b). is broad. enough to cover *

such. conduct., It requires eyery ‘citizen who departs

the United. States. during, a. emergency: to

bear a. “valid” passport. The “validity”..of: a) pass-

-port turns not merely on whether it is unexpired ‘and

‘unrevoked; the statutory: definition of the term. ‘‘pass-

port” indicates, that Congress deemed validity “for

* *.* entry.*)*.* into a foreign country” as an inte-

gral part of such a document, A passport which. is

invalid for,|the. country: to which, the . traveler ‘is

destined is, therefore, as defective -underSection

215(b), as an expired or revoked passport...» 0!

-that. Section 215(b)..was merely a. {‘border control?’

‘measure,; In, fact, itis, quite clear that in, carving

ah eenopatiens Sn: Ae anni Nane Peele

the Exeeutive/ has distinguished among travelers..on

the basis of » countries to which they are traveling.

Hence. the. ee ee

ture and entry” provision:

B,. The. legislative history .of Section 215(b) salah

be read in light of the Department of State’s. wartime

expressly providing wartime measures only... During

World. War I, the, Department of State validated

passports, only ‘‘for specific countries and. for speeifiic

purposes.’’ Section 215(b)’s. command, thaty.a

‘‘valid’’ passport be, possessed, by any citizen leaving

\dhe' United States in tite “of : oiiheeLetinnitionlal emer-

-géndy—which was copied from similar statutes‘passed

‘th’ 1918 arid 1941—nhust’be read as referring ‘to. that

- practice. In ‘light of that. practice, Congress could

‘not have been intending’ in’1918and 1941! to permit

which travelers” passports were! specifidally’ Validated.

bi Lobe sure, the Department of State has not called

this application of Séetion 215 (byte public attention

‘as inuéh as it might have, and State Department repre-

‘sentatives have occasionally suggested that no criminal

‘sanctions lie‘ behind the Secretary’s area restrictions.

Neither these'statements—many of which are ambigu-

‘ous—hor the various unsuecessful attempts ‘to enact

legislation ‘dealing more’ specifically with this problem

'than- does Section 215(b): are; however, determinative

of the issue of statutory construction ‘presently before

‘the ‘Court. ‘See Federal Tradé' Commission v. Dean.

Foods Oo., 384 0.8.) 597!'The Déepartmenit of State’s

‘recent view is clearly expressed in the endorsemént.on

‘passports which warns’travelers that if they-g0 to’a

‘geographically restricted: area, they “tay be ssa

for prosecution under Section [215}2’ {009 bus os:

“U@, The/defendants ‘in ‘these: enséa:eimniot? beflnin

that they were not given-‘ample warning. They knew

“that ‘travel to’ Cuba would violate a condition ‘of their

‘passports’ ahd that the posséssion’ of ao! valia’* pass-

sport ‘was d condition 6f departure: ("This is tot a case

‘ixiowhieh condutt which might have beén thought to be

be eyes aerate shape agente mma

mest. brigssstcayorn oa HPGd) GIS, «| toiled. ** peeoiptag

UH EB: i HOxitis : ES vd own eBid] xd fogeead © ‘Pais vi’

. 4

CL ~

—-

om .

Ty 6 , rine Beales ae

ofA: Iss ax 8: Rejection *: ot time iti

arguments made.iin' Zemel7v’: Rusk, 281, 08..4, not

withstanding’ its recognition that refusal ‘to validate

passports for travel to Cuba deters travel to that aren,

is a eomplete answer tothe First.and: Fifth Amend:

ment challenges made by the deferidants:in these ¢aisbs. :

_Having held that a restriction upon ‘foreign travel is

an inhibition upo n action and not upon speech, this

Court ‘whould abet ‘the diam made! sy puLtShee

Travis that ‘the power to pértdit "travel to’ Cuba con

férs'd censors discretion Upoli’the Séctethity OF State,

O8B Ofte bkbossive delevation Wrstittiont Was’ innita

ise ate’ rejected Hi Zemeh:! Phe" Exec ‘

tieddssarily 't nte od "BHOAA diberotion TH the “ares

of foreign vebiitighs oof, the volatilé Hatate’ of

international relations. Congress created the crime—

departure without a valid’ passport—and left to the

Secretary: only the istandards\of/validity.) ‘There ‘is,

consequently; no ‘substance: to" ‘the | claity “that” the

Exeditivé Hus been Biren the power ‘to deterhinie’ what

conde Will be rinitinal. Gtk YOmPore ATA Ghia

EDA AZIIA OTR AK AL

bortaiade tie) aids ae PL 38: ON: dots Al?

- Section 215(b) ajpplies ever’ though! that provisidh

was Hot cited ‘in thé promulgating clause! of the Ex

eluding! Cuba’?! teghlation; » The: \Adfendants.) ware.

ameer tegen mt pn Statute; rt fom goat :

tha United Stat IV.

fee"! ipresidential ' proclamations’ whith * ‘are . ‘the

“triggers” for Section 215 ‘are still in ‘effect and ‘their

basis! is not ‘a sibjett for judicial examination.” The

statute confers only on the Executive and on Congress

the power to repeal thé state of national emergency

Saas ia ane se seen ere gr — 215.

nielncee Vv

va Rebiblene: ‘Travis onal the United States with

the, intention .of traveling to Cuba if that country

would .admit, her, Area restrictions would be, mean-

ingless -if, her, subsequent entry into Cuba were not

deemed criminal simply, because it was not certain

at, the time of her departure that Cuba would permit

to ter... .

a am@uanmes

ii} ri Yroi frite 1 Ant

AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES: DUR-

. (ING. Al NATIONAL EMERGENCY BOUND FOR A DESTINATION

j) WITH RESPECT 10. WHICH; THEIR PASSPORTS ARE IN-

_ VALID VIOLATE SECTION 215(b) OF THE IMMIGRATION

_ AND NATIONALITY ACT

In Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, this Court sustained

the power of the Secretary of State to impose area re-

strictions;upon travel: abroad: by American citizens.

The Court: held. that the power had been conferred: by

the:Passport: Act: of :1926,.22..0.8.C) 211(a), which

generally; authorized the Secretary of State to “grant

and -igsue,passports;* "| “under such «rules as the

‘iRresident_ Shall, designate: ‘and ..preseribe *:*:*,’’

lf!

the language of the: 1926\.Act expressly manifests:an’

intention to authorize atea restrictions, the Court held

that, the. breadth. of the statutory language «andthe

Executive’s: consistent practi¢e—-well, known: :te !Qon-

gress—of imposing such) restrictions during | periods:

of national! emergency wartanted thé! conclusion that:

Congress ‘intended .in 1926 to maintain in the Dxéen,

tive the authority. to, make such. restrictions.’!\\ 381)

U& at,9 Our contention that Section: 215(b) .sub- |

jéets to’ eriminal penalties any,.American :eitisen ‘who,

departs. the United. States for an, immediate or ulti-:

mate. destination with respecti to. whieh: his passpartis;

invalid rests on much the same considerations, ». {))2100'

violations of, area restrictions;, it) speaks, asthe dis+)

triet court noted:.in- the Lawb. case' (LiR:| 42), im ithe:

language of ‘‘border.control statutes regulating de-,

parture from and. entry ‘into’ the,United; States.’’:

But, for reasons explained. below, we believe. that, as’

in Zemel, the text is broad enough to encompass.de- ;

partures/for geographically restricted, areas, and, the ;

consistent practice known. to: Gongress ‘when Section ;

215(b) and its predecessor were enacted renders;it un-

likely that Congress intended: to leave: the large: gap in.

enforcement of area. restrictions, which; would result,

from the decision of the district coprt im Lamb." tine 2:1

tr) penbaamatsnanaeanenane a,

of ithe Wester B

A:(3HR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 216(b) 18 BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER

VIOLATIONS OF AREA RESTRICTIONS

bisg puwoY 9!

» Section 215(b) declares it unlawful, in times of war

national emergency, for any citizen of the United

States ‘‘to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart

from orienter; the United States: unless he bears a

validpassport.’’ «On its face, the statute requires not

only that: the*traveler possess a passport when he de-'

parts, ‘but that the passport be a “valid” one. The:

district court'in Laub construed the adjective “valid”

as‘telating only to whether the passport has been re-

voked“or"has expired. Im so°doing, the court over-

looked a third element—+.e., whether the passport has

been validated for the traveler’s intended destination.

Our) position, ‘stated | suecinetly, is that a passport’s

“validity”-within the m of Section 215(b) does

not) alone‘depend on its &tatus’as unexpired and un-

revoked; itois “valid” only for such travel as’ the

Seorétary: of State’ authorizes. Having the power to

issue-pasports, the Secretary also has the necessarily

included power of imposing conditions and limitations

upon the ‘validity of such documents. No one would.

argué ‘that the Secretary may not fix a period of years:

less : ‘the statutory maximum (22°U.S:0. 217a) for

is'to: be! valid:’' Anyone then depart-:

ing? withi-dua dubioldate! jbeseport thas ‘ulesirly: vidleted’

en eee

cena pense qrniannsmraliialt nines. pea

apply to a citizen who left the country in violation of

a restriction on departures by certain kinds of ve-

hicles—assuming these were a rational’ and permissible

basis for such a restriction. In sum, any condition of

validity which the Secretary imposes is as much an ele-

ment‘of a passport’s “validity” for purposes of Sec-

tion 215(b) as the passport’s expiration date.

“1. Indeed, the condition which these cases involve—

- @ limitation upon ‘the foreign states to which the

passport is‘ addressed—is related’ in a’ much more

fundamental ‘sense ‘to the essential nature of a pass-

port than technical conditions ‘stich ‘as'an ¢xpiration _

date. ‘\“Passport”’ is defined ‘ini ‘Section 101 (30) “of

the! Immigration’ and Nationality Act’ of -1952, 8

U8:0,: 1101(30), as follows’ ‘(emphasis added) .

of ON he “term “passport? means any travel doc-

“ument'issued ‘by competent authority showing

or seal ‘bearer’s origin identity, ‘and nationality if

init py Tr ie ior MR gen eete eee

oY ies <i ea apie tor ** fs

The;j-conelnding. language of: -the. shed definition

demonstrates that a “travel document’ ? which. other-

wise appears to-.be a passport is: not ne a in

the |, statutory ..sense | until; it is validated .-

entry, *.*)Aanto. @~ Fe i

observed. in ng :

and object, is sddgmatiitctaasign-s omndh beeps

ing- only: to bea, request, that.the bearer of ‘it, may

speniaiien ideas RiP 8% TE a traveler is des-.

tined, for .a.foreign, country witha passport which

ig, not Ascicieannsds i the-government of that country;

he .is' traveling with no, passport, at, all; |For; as. the

Departuient of State observed in.a 1957 response to

a Senate conamittee, a passport, “is always a request

to ianother -government fax -safe,,conduct. of. ' the

- bearer.”) Hearings Before the Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations, on: ‘Department, of State, Rasaport

‘Policies, 85th Cong:, Ist Sess, (1957), py 59s « dn, the

that an/.endersement on.,.a | passport, reading; ({;{Not

Walid tego; to country, X/ *;* *, means that aq far.as

the. United. States; is; concerned, the, passport, Js not

valid for-use in. travel. to country, X.”’; Fbid. cds pron

- -¥oTonke sure,.as this Court observed in Kent:y: Dulles,

$57: U8. 116,129, the age-old function of a passport

is presently its subordinate role; “[i]ts crucial function

today is control over exit.’’ But whether itsuffices as

a document; controlling exit is not the complete,test of

eve passport’s: Validity. The statute defines » passport

asa dociment' “valid for the entry of the bearer into

a foreign country’’ not as one “valid ‘for the departure

of ithe bearer fromthe United States.”’ ‘This choice

- of language’must’mean that a passport doés Hot meet

the statutory conditions unless, so far as the Secretary

of State has the power to do ‘so, he has authorized the

- pearer niot! only to depart: the ‘United States but’ to

- @ntér the edantry to'which-lid is'destined. ) 1 ore"

> 98]Nor ean (the? words” “entry %%) * ts duostong

” Ceountry?’ beoread 4a imiedning ‘entry ** *-into any

| > foreign ‘vountry;” thereby’ validating: for purposes of

: ' @eparturesunder® Séction 215(h) a! teavel: document

whith authorizesentry into‘ a foreign eountry other

thent aiithorizing entry’ into country: X ; and: thereby

adiressed”to' the’ government of WX is hardly of ‘use

‘toa traveler déstined for Y.° Tt’ does,\of course, ins

féteritially”anthotize’ hit ‘to’ ayaa sate

iit’ it’ mest made jeaniing

entry: "Havitig ts ay df

ant “of ’a pakep

- ritzy”? Congress’ oould wt tit: adit tela

that a’ Validation or any entry whatever—even if it

% Be to: a pou . ry in which the traveler has no prospect

corns Pen ope ee TUR We sub-

«mit that Keston 10180), must be read, as megning

that “an: authorizing travel. seument, ‘qualifies, as, a

S ungca ” only. if.it-is, valid. for entry, into, the for-

jh Rt oF, countries, to, which, the traveler, is

aio then, ‘that, the prohibition, in

@), pinaariures sation Z vali)

invalid for the forign country to which the traveler

ipcdestined. 4) -o)-}) + betes

Thin contin i further ported y the ovina

in Laub would

ear it tn yar ag

policy ¢onsiderations whith underlie: area. restrictions.

For if Section 215(b) does not make travel to Cuba

ant Rpoka koghademagh anya ns i

ba of ind , Whe ‘midiy: hie ab

1544, which prohibits. use of a passport “‘in violation

of the conditions or restrictions therein eontained,’’

would not appear to apply when, as is usually the

case, entry into the prohibited area is accomplished

without ‘‘use’’ of the passport.. There is no indica-

tion, in other words, that petitioner Travis exhibited

or otherwise ‘ “used’”’ her passport in gaining entry to

Cuba. And the provision governing the making of

false statements in an application for a passport

would plainly not apply if no application were made

(i.e., if a passport previously issued for another trip

were used for travel to Cuba) or if the application

listed only other foreign countries which the traveler

intended to visit. ©

The construction of Section 215(b) which the dis-

triet court and court of appeals adopted in the Travis

ease and which we urge here was also adopted by the

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Worthy v.

United States, 328 F. 24386. While the court there

reversed a conviction under Section 215(b) for having

unlawfully entered the United States,‘ it noted (328

F. 2d at 391; emphasis added): |

°° "he appellant puts forward the ‘proposition

that the intent and purpose of the Congress was

SE paeinmmpinacaniioding dtpantates toga 'on

He was indicted for and convicted of:a violation of section

provision.

ion: mesreecine meek aed

st a ty han fom Porto Ge |

"Hows, my be dl 6p tab ol

si aye fal. on. its Petes .

p>)

9198) Ghe: prinempaberror-of the’ distriet eourt in Laub

‘and of the petitioner! in Pravis (seeTravis Br. 11, 20,

= he es is thei? desertion’ that Sedtion'215(b) is

fnerély,a* rope ie axid entry’* ar “boiler control”

tafe and. was not inended to 2

tion of, p Pa dey citizens. traveling abroad aR. 35-

@1, 41, 45). The most. persuasive evidence that Sec-

‘tion 215(b)) is and always was considered a statute

‘authorising limitations’ upon “travelets’ destinations is

«the consistent administration of the ‘‘exeeption’’ pro-

fa departures! without‘a .valid'‘passport “éxtept las

otherwise provided by the President, and: subject! to

such; limitations: and exceptions asthe President may

v@uthorize ‘and -prescribe’’(pi 47, infra): «Ef! Section

‘215(b)’ were: ‘merely a ‘departure ‘and’ entry” provi-

‘ion'and Were not concerned ‘with the ‘Gcstittations of

se ‘leaving ‘the United States, it would Became be

out of Keeping, wi

wath, .the:, tatute’s _ tenor, to », Agsue eXx-

feptions ; which depend. upon where.,.a traveler is

headed. ‘Yet, as the district court noted.in,Leub, ex-

- geptions promulgated by. the President shortly after

the original version of, the statute was enacted; in

1918 fell, into:.two categories: (1) (Military, and

serel pt prcponnely: ae: sel, o0-ntnee nines

_ ment, personnel, were permitted. to, depart,

py 54,,onf rai | The Srst, pf shese,eategories is; We MeTeR,

an-exception to a-“departuxe, andi entay)’ prohjbitaesy

The second, liowever.: cansiok; be, negonsiled; qrith the

ptopesition that.the statate was: designed 0nlya8:4

form of ‘bender. contrat? (LB. 423. dé plainky, dis,

tingiiish€s >dmong) traxelers: 1om the -basiaoof «their

destinations: An individual, without.a; passpext, Wee

departs fora: Central American, eoumtay penamtits ae

éffense;!) the!> semen travelers destined iqfor - deunope

violates ‘Section 2Li¢hjiiesb estate betia’l) sdt mort

tothe 2fadtothatt: the: Piesident--may.-excuse, trayelers

to Central America from the east obligation | o€

Section, 21°(0), Soe Se reg gg

statute gives him the, power, tomeke sartain destina-

tions impermissiblesoiBatritdoes. demonstrate that the

statute accords the Executive; the uthority, to repeh

beyond <actrayelers’. bare departure, from.the Tpited

States, and to; impose, obligations, upon the

sonntnies. to, whigh he iscdestined,, wn se

regulation . TR AN travelers, in.) the,

Reed Pee ea chin eee

8. RSPFiag whicboanalces. the SAE IAP

the Wiestem, /Hemisph

station, 0 : hich ad OS

th pa pep nan

rable i Sm

of State’ to’ impose ‘area’ restrictions—-which was. up-

‘Held by this Court in 'Zemelv. Rusk, 381 U.S.:1—as

- toexempt! other geographical areas entirely ‘from the

passport ‘requirement—a “power nowhere specifically

delegated to any Executive official. Since, as we have

fhown, ‘Congress did not intend to deny’the President

the ‘power to make the: criminal sanctions of Section

215(b) contingent upon a traveler’s destination, those

sanctions apply when, as here, the travelers departed

from the United States destined: for a country to

which ‘their ab slept “been endorsed as ‘‘not

B. THE “ LAGISLAT! TIVE " HISTORY “AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETA-

"TION ‘OF "SECTION 215(b) ARE CONSISTENT WITH ITS APPLICA-

‘TION ‘TO VIOLATIONS OF AREA RESTRICTIONS

“We agree ‘with the district court in Laub (LR. 42)

and with petitioner in Travis (Travis Br. 22-24) that

the most pertinent’ legislative history is that of the

passage of the Act of May 22; 1918, 40 Stat. 559, since

it wae that statute which’ was substantially teentacted

in 1941 (55 Stat. 252) and as Section 215 of the Im-

migration and Nationality Act of 1952. The House

and Senate’ feports pertaining to the bill which be-

cathe the 1918 ‘Act ‘are itiedger, and they do’ ndt ‘ad-

" @ress themélves to the question ‘whether the stitute

We wn ne Ber gene ‘tise’ who traveled 2 ‘fro

| 2, 6061-8068, (Honse), 6191-6195,

6246-6248. (Senate), The district, court drew. from

this silence: the inferenpe they, Congress was not | |

concerned with where de | traveled, bu

only with whether they were permitted to depart. But

that, conclusion. overlooks. the Department of State’s

then outstanding passport. policies. For, the, reasons

stated below, we believe that the. 1918 legislation, con-

strued in light of what Congress then knéw regarding

wartime passport policies, was intended to’subject to

eriminal sanctions any person who departed ‘in vidla-

tion of a geographical restriction in his passport.1° //

The 1918 Act was passed asa war measure (506 56

Cong.” Ree: 6030, 6191);*. indeéd, ‘unlike’ Seétion

215(b), it was expressly applicable’ only “when ‘the

United States is at’ war’’ (40 Stat: 559). It was the

subject. of unpublished” hearings before the House

Committee on Foreign Affairs (56 Oorig. Rec.'6030),

and among the witnesses testifying in support of ‘the

legislation at the hearings were the Acting Secretary

of State, the Coutisellor of the Department of State

and the Chief of the Bureau of Passports... 56 Cong.

ba Reihttss before

Feege'as aon Be

Poliates, ae ‘Cong. Tt

treqab suger ftiw berrtgoso9

&° prio £48 AS oa ebeade! or

Wend valid for val

Bespiiihing Deveinber '9;19%4) pass

-009 .1qsdetsigweté Cinadé tvdlid’ for (specific | countries

Queibtnandosion\ specifies purposes.\\\ This \practioe, eoh-

oF oof, dipued treughout the wary. "sto vai DAES

-siiy other) wonds, passport, issued ; during, World

War Lcwas:not,{ like; the’ analogous. document; issued

today, a-generalanthorization, to Aravel /witily enamer-

sated excepitions. Lt iwas, ‘instead, issued “for specifir

eouninies’:and: fori apeeifio; purposes,” ". and; was jvalid

atily for the limited travel endorsed thereon. ;-) 5) 0)

seDhe Congress whichipessed, the Act of 1918 doubt-

’ Jeasoknewlofvthis wartime formof passport. ;; axing

ehatted: a statute .whirh- sade, a, {{¥alid; passport; a

Reerssary condition; of. wartime, departure, from the

Pmited. States; Congress vould: snot, we submit, aye

mewedinasieaney icireee tWedr Tj thectanedihg didbrse-

placeden i passporte which were issued aad

from a apa ‘Send i Gerke

vi esa in a co seen a Arcl q

9G ott nero mrp OF OTT TEE Pam

etish Sleitibeey st GoD eco 30) TQobpee Ne Maley t *

2 An eden ase -theeld-.wd-

22.

intended, to leaye; the. gap, which, the. district, gourt in

Laub believed had been left—i.e., to impoge.no crim-

ta set eo eateaer i

States, for, destinations, o those, for srhich

their, massparts;,had been, endorsed; What, Congness

yanst have a ’s, borders

altogether, except, ta, the extent travel was specifically

ssoried 7,40, sid ther,

piven, departing a9

tn, Without, any. passpart at. ieee

endorsed, fost RESP BAS APACS incon

RBRCHARE) sine silt stolsd anitinsH * fevett oil

-vebhe Ab, of AG,..dn, ether “wonds, imposed. the

existing, State- Department policies regarding Dass:

ports.gn any-gitizen planning to. depart drom,or,enter

the country,;,..d¢. wagothen San haps

Beare’ standing, ta limit.all passports.fex travel, ta, de;

fined, areas, Phat, practice sust, Rane,

FonerPse had, jin, anindi 1, Ht ; wpresqribed a, iva ;

passpork’7iasi&, condition, of departy- og The statute

wae intended, mesubdmit, to make, it uplayyful to. travel

te) axeas; for hich tha, State, Department, refused: ta

issve 2- Passport | The effect, was, not, limited to enemy

territory, fay in 1Asthe Depertanan: (to issue

passports: fon *funnecessary,’ travel, to » doe

Department explained (§ Hackworthy Bivest.ef Inter:

NEON. Fega, 2942),., R980) deodd ai gaidto%

mot! o®he passport siestiictions are! maintained first

sxirtot becamtiderthe: Departinent-deenis it iziadvisable i im

cist general to allow unnecessary travel between this

-Is toqeumtry andsDupope peace Has been de-

oft tolckanedesand veeebridgw coskditions in

Europe, particularly in the shortage of food

¥3

'° and’ overtaxing of transportation and other

» The 1918 statute lapsed, by its own terms, with the

end of the war, and the passport-bearing requirement

was not reenacted into law until World War‘II. In

the interim, the Department of State had imposed area

restrictions upon Ethiopia, China and Spain. And,

with the beginning of hostilities in Europe, the De-

partment of State again required (except for travel

in the Western Hemisphere) that passports “set forth

the specific countries to be visited and the purpose of

the travel.’’ Hearings before the Senate Committee

_ On Foreign Relations on’ Department of State Pass-

port Policies, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957), p. 64. See

Department Order No. 8H, 4 Fed. Reg. 3892. Against

that background, Congress in 1941 substantially re-

enacted the 1918 statute, again prescribing a “valid

passport”—which meant, in light of the existing prac-

tice, one that“set forth the specific countries to be visited

and the purpose of the travel’’—as a condition of de-

partute. (Act of June 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 252.) Some

indication of the meaning ascribed to the 1941 legisla-

tion emerges from the President’s subsequent issuance

of regulations listing the exceptions to the 1941 act,

which stated, as does the present 22 C.F.R. 53.8 (p. 55,

infra), that (6 Fed. Reg. 6070) :

’ Nothing in these rules and regulations shall be

construed to prevent the Secretary of State from

exercising the discretion resting in him to refuse

countries, to withdraw or cancel a passpogt al-

» Teady issued, or to withdraw a passport for the

purpose a», restricting its malities one

tain countries. “

The 1952 statute has, as the diatrict saat motel in.

Laub, ‘‘no independent legislative history’’ (L.R.. 42).

But relevant in determining Congress’ understanding

of the term ‘‘valid passport’’ is the fact that. area

restrictions had been imposed on travel to Hungary

and ‘Czechoslovakia in 1951 and that in May 1952—

one month before: the enactment of the Immigration

and Nationality Act of 1952—the Department. of

State announced that thereafter all passports would

be stamped (State. Department Press Release No. 341,

May 1, 1952, 26 Dept. of State Bull. 736) :

This passport is not valid for travel to Al-

bania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, Hun-

gary, Poland, Rumania, or the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics unless specifically endorsed

undér authority of the Department of State

\. as being valid for such travel.

Our argument with respect to the history of these

acts rests, therefore, not on what legislative reports

or debates expressly say. It is founded rather on

the premises from which. Congress must have pro-

, ceeded when it passed the statutes of 1918, 1941 and

\ 1952. On each occasion, the Department of State’s

_ ‘passport policy was geographically ictive: a pass-

port was “‘valid’”’ only for certain déstinations. In

enacting Section 215(b) and its predecessors Con-

gress must, we believe, have incorporated this stand-

ard of validity into the statute.

_ The district court in Laub placed substantial, reli-

ance on the fact that Section 215(b) does not ex-

PPesshyo4 pie hitiit! pra vel 4ooproseribedvareasuas well

as * * * prohibit departure and“eit#y™ *'*” (LR.

44 po! But'the fast that Congress framed Chu statute

des? géhebal “wetinis! ottideblip>lineobpouating » whatdMer

‘PeritiBTG HtandaRds” bf validity ithe! Seeretary sof

Sette Shi chit desth “it ‘ prudent t6! impose; does? not

sath iit Hitenieh th-withhold the power 'teiximpose

area festriétions “The gelidhal purpose df the stahute

Sidi We elie 96) to osib ject eparthires fron this cour

Wy tap etiietet! comtrois hh al vabidty Gf aways; aniong

AHI Wardha Population: vf tiwvelers’ destinations.

BE nbfe oapelificanintsrations of | thit Spattiowar re!

striction mi¢h?tiavl Beati Sonstrubd Cuiider the arith

jdentidcaans Loc gee sachet intended’ to deprive

othe Kinds of

ae — TO B16 ran asiod vise

pit 4 il have j iii a)

at ferrari ere 2 2 y, welt shige ag Sai a

tates Se eet ue

oO Wyott oF t oer Atry* Ironse ts Th om

aS qi3 0 Mog rt eae na

z Sater bobinio ae

VBA reat der, suc fs

t setae, 3 - : mgt eR EIN S ery he ap

pole geet tg ay adi Py: a aN 7 pe

fs pg oo the aft

al Pent Hwee mk W, ssi ¢. Ante a

Sona Gropsing of. the, foreign

are AY, ; ARO, DE. pega! ement, 0 that

ie 2 bas ‘render, the f statute extra

Zt feeds seo 9 ee ape

biol, to! whith the traveler actially goek If lHeonever

étiters aihdstricted-arva lie hus not; ixtespective of his

state of minty departed Avithout : &S-vilids<passport.

The departate io the Gulf of he! offeias) “Phe lentey

thto thé bestricted wren iwi féren0éf-ieonditiod sub-

sequstit, Jitst- 4s/¢for' ¢xamples the (éoheniasion of: an

Overt woth world 8s wider ithe oféderd? ledtapirdcy

weathte 18 ve BoD eidt doidw t9woq yuogs to

-ONop ard the Petitionsriineraob Travia Bi, 82-93)

AHE this Mistrict déurtlin Dall TOR) 3841) rtect ih

relying on the failure of the Congress to éxacti pire

| Posed TeHivlation ‘to nieke the violation wf area! restFic- -

ton i Crinke)\( Beda ded 'Seetivit! 235(by wes notes wie!

Plikit Hi Prubibitihng violativvis of ards restrictions ds

it thight Be; -¢He “Président ‘ahd! the >Departabut ist

State have repeatedly sought to put(the mbtter beyorid

dispate. sThat.isi ogmnmon, i practice: y.A8. the qurt

Peeenthy Acted ii tse ig a ah holed 4

Peds Corset Se Aa Goal Ne 2 Jublic’ Bo elt

Qaires., Li ESF

or vtec 3 der

ary Cane brah! Prot’

4 fing gi Mond ty ty SV" Plat

rer Ss. eto ets

Beall ot he: Ca

° sian ns ) ate “tlt a aa

affrmatine.evidenge efino-aushopity,?) .( 384, Sat

er 680"? RES YP Md oe

ap age S ele we ae ae

chnetertre tk

Aja ee fol . % ee ei

ca oad a T88 A Tait. mi vASTTOTT ue

| ad

applicable or that.criminal sanctions might be invoked

if area restrictions .were violated. See LR. 35-36;

Travis Br. 26-27; 3.Hackworth, Digest of Interna-

tional Law (1942), p. 530; 26 Dept. of State Bull. 736.

,- But these omiksions by the agency charged with ad-

ministration of the passport provisions are far less

substantial than’ the numerous affirmative disclaimers

* of agency power whichrthis Court deemed unpersua-—

sive in Federal Trade Commission v..Dean Foods Co.,

884. U.S. 597, 636-640 (Appendix to dienenting

opinion). :

The 1952 press release is, moreover, seiiiiieiaa am-

biguous., After announcing that passports would be

stamped not valid for travel in Iron Curtain coun-

~ tries, the release said (Press Release No. 341, a Devt.

of State Bull. 736) :

"© Petitioner ‘Travis ‘also’ relies ‘on the Department of State’s

1957 response to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in

which it advised the Committee that the endorsement of an

area restriction on a passport “does not necessarily’mean that if

the bearer travels te country X he will be violating the criminal

law” (Travis Br. 30-32). The statement/is not inconsistent with

our present position for two reasons: First, Section 215(b)

applies only in times of war or national emergency, while the *

authority to make the restrictive endorsement is not so limited.

Compare Section 211a of the Passport Act of 1926, 22 U.S.C.

2ila. Consequently, the Department was right in respond-

ing that travel in violation of an area restriction is not “neces-

" sarily” «violation of the criminal law; it’ is no violation if ~

there is no national emergency in effect: Second, the bearer

of a passport with a restrictive endorsement may travel to

“country X” and not be violating the criminal law if he forms’

the intention of going there after he has left the United States.

It is only if his infended-destination when he leaves is country

X that he can be criminally prosecuted under Section 215(b) if

subsequently enters that country.

‘In dite this announcement, the Depart-

+ thent’-enrphasized* that this: procedure. in no

way forbids American. travel to those areas.

It eontemplates that. American. citizens will

consult the. Department or’. the Consulates

abroad to ascertain the dangers of traveling” in

countries where acceptable standards of protec-

tion do not ae aw and that, if no-objection is -

percetved;, the’travel ' may. be authorized: ag

If the first sentence of this paragraph ‘ stood alone

it would be fair mclude that there is no criminal

sanction for trayel to areas upon which passport re-

strictions have been imposed. But we submit that the

second sentence casts an entirely different meaning

‘ upon the whole paragraph, which may be fairly read

as saying the following: ““By imposing area restric:

tions the Department is not absolutely prohibiting

travel to these areas.. If the dangers of travel in

these areas are reduced at any particular time or in

‘the case of any particular person, permission to travel

will be granted.’’ Such a reading does not, of course,

conflict with the view we take here—that departure’

in violation of area restrictions is adap under’

pain of criminal sanctions.

Irrespective of the implications of its press release,

the Department of State generally took the position

in Congressional hearings that Section 215(b) ap-

plied to departures in violation of area restrictions.

See Testimony of Acting Director, Bureau of Se-

curity and Consular Affairs, in Hearings on the Right

to Travel before the Subcommittee on Constitutional

Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,

4 ; e

”

F -

. 4 . 7

‘ :

a. So

3 30

owes 1st, S08. (A957 )9i PP. 8891 Phe testi-

Baongi i of arb-earlipr- administrator of ithe same,bureau,

tee whick: the odidtriet’ court(weferrdd(iint Lows (LR. |

eae cal Aare faxtd’ dole Het Bhve re-

W “Gt thy!’ nent of

fiedidat Be a {or a8 9 Tail Ie: ZA a 1986" House

Me ¢ e who, Wis W d to, carey vent

the Bae 9 RPP HEN FARK), could —

Re the United. ,Stater,. without... passport fay

European .destinek Samm eenvins SMr Baka

on, Wii

Hom pf; American lew He, said that, (once they AaNe

leftithe Hnited States,..any, inhibitions, on trays!

abroad are val ne ie Jag he Jey nat '

ectomnigieolie iretenead ah

thera 4h ig on

ee ee $4 i

: (4959), BOTs et Ry Ars ty ae een Qa! ict

| RRREREDE BED EP og ga am Ge een the

a resident pursuap 2 C, 1s

te Section Bab(),,. Fon 2 GER, ae ae

departures, without Pro BARRO , £2, , Weste AIC si a

sphere countries ae they, are, tha, travel pens ul 1

oe NR, a ae ee a oT ee My a LY NL ET RT IE” IT MAL PY es

ae \ i

\omis bht's! weunn Beethin ans (by applies

te! ui eel ana Wai ine "area \re

fd “Hal? "Beeb ekpresied! ine-ah “etidordembunt

Pldcelt "OH ‘Passporty' dings Tanahiy- 1981! FoMowing

the SHAS WiGh tite the eovittitivs ‘upon 'ihiet cares

» WORERICHORE-HAe Bee imptbed> the L6Mdwing iHotive

kppellts’ CLR! dye “otusase [scaioit> 6 to mottomwrte

A Person Whd ‘%tavels YO Ot hh Phe Listed

ols lo Ooh tries Ox Adds May Bo Libis For Prdse-

noi oleation Gnder Séétion 1485; /Ditle:8;: US; Code,

itist Amd Geetion: 1544>Pitle.18; U.S. Code.) (i)are

‘Fhis: warning, ave! submit; forrially! expresses the: view.

of :thd | Hxetutive: department jregandirig the appli

bility :of Sebtion1215¢b) andi iit puts travelers such Bs

theo defendants int [these icasés on notices that eximinal

Satictions ‘are:;pnesetibed for'their violations of arse

vebtrietionsc i Btacbooieb odt tadt tost oT (81-11

0, ra abot “ERS Ab isd Haein wakitata dikth

(CyfoLeriOne 6% dttth! akivtadotione! me @enéniaier) euler

LAMB jon 290b Isniotits toubmaoo tied? 9clemn ton bib

Phd Ustrict' dott i Laid dapportar its dondluiiea

that Sectior 215 Oh) aid’ noe resell the Gondaet wheba

$e CHa -indidtenent and bi? OF particulirs by involeing-

‘tHe! Toctttiis! that: Crindtihid states aH uid! te eerietly

Winsthdda CLR i49)! Petitions Tavis minkep the

Yelated Wontention, tHat' Géetibn’ 205 th)p event read

‘yogethe? With’ the applicable’ roped tions) “is tkiborist

thBoray vapile “as applied hetle heck weet! ttle stb

/ <pnotity travel that lvielatiiods’ of tivee/dnemestétion

\ “are criminally punishable (Travis Br. 36-45). How-

_ ever the argument is phrased, it appears to us to

raise saenneny the re of fair. ‘warning which

this Court considered recently in, Bouie v, City of

Columbia, 378.U.S;,347....We submit that the defend-

ants in these cases, unlike the petitioners in Bouse,

had more than ample notice that their conduct was

impermissible. .They were not engaging in totally in-

nocent.conduct which, but for an unexpected. con-

struction of a criminal statute, would not be subject |

to any punitive measures whatever.

It was stipulated that. petitioner Travis knew of the

applicable regulations and of the provisions of Section

215(b) (TR. 51). The appellees in Laub may fairly

be presumed, on the allegations of this indictment, to

thave known of the restrictions on travel to Cuba ‘and

of the eridorsement on their passports advising them

that prosecution under Section 215(b) was a possi-

bility. (See also the facts of the related case, LR.

11-13.) The fact that the defendants may have dis-

agreed with State Department officials and believed,

as the district court did in Laub, that Section 215(b)

didn «make their conduct criminal does not mean

that they were not given fair warning.- For they

plainly knew that their violations of area restrictions

might result..in the revocation of their passports.

Consequently, they were not taken by surprise.. These

eases are, therefore, quite unlike Raley v. Ohio, 360

U.S. 423,.and Kraus & Bros, v. United States, 327

US. 614, where those who were convicted of crime

for believing that they were engaging in

any ih other than wholy lawful conduc,

Ly “

SECTION 215(8) MAY CONSTITUTION ALLY BE APPLIED TO

VIOLATIONS OF AREA RESTRICTIONS |

A. THE PROHIBITION UPON TRAVEL TO DESIGNATED AREAS DOES NOT

VIOLATE THE FIRST OR FIFTH AMENDMENT

The basic constitutional issue was. resolved by

Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, in which this Court noted

that the governmental power there being challenged—

t.e., the Secretary of State’s refusal to validate a pass-

port for a given geographic area—‘‘acts as a deter-

rent to travel to that area.” 381 U.S. at .14. The

Court held that it was constitutionally permissible to

impose governmental restrictions of this kind upon

the “liberty” of travel protected by the Fifth Amend-

ment because such restrictions rest upon “the weight-

iest considerations of national security.’’ 381 U.S.

at 14-16. The Court also held that no First Amend-

ment right was at issue because the inhibition’ on

travel to Cuba (or other geographically restricted

areas) “is an inhibition of action” (381 U.S, at 16)

and not of speech. Those conclusions fully control

this case and answer the First and Fifth Amendment

challenges to Section 215(b)’s effective prohibition on

travel to Cuba (Travis Br. 58-61).

There is no su ce to petitioner Travis’ claim

that this case involyes. different questions under the

First and Fifth Am dments because it imposes a

criminal penalty, ant toes

withdrawal of governmental assurances of safe

passage, So far as the First Amendment is con-

cerned, this Court’s conclusion i in Zemel that no First

not merely authorize ‘the .

be ae aes

~onnnennetalepth een

a are a Sy Be phe

a agod ‘in the, op naeaiwn er ek ale nal a6 ; sia a pe

‘comelumon ‘ert Wis Ss asa a0 ey ~ ial ce

stom i100 oa there was my stion cs oo

ptr n mn the

MOL BAhS -

28 a MLEY ot the’ oT 2 pon O eerstrane 4 ont

pir nies on “exam

-1939D_S 28 2398°°-—5 ay" ptr roy

ia ay ta “wes ms. Ass , _ v.. Do of , 89 U. ‘ot 388,

LUT II yiissoity tite 2 he agit I led ea

nmoqu itione rike anor a (TOI iT sw © “920d Mii

on the ais ek i tty, jpvignhacynp ay salt ait}

- t é 19

bc ‘confers ecrefary” a

219W modu in ‘the stn j2 fon yO Orit

a ” "ea-88). th woisa ae “iS Ungo ad [Zit Te

. tt in Z +8 sind f na [10 pti onl * a) tif

} id th epee — ed

fie dqsTg209 Panto “TO me oh ae

tho ‘(104 4 ~ ick it (16 Fl era! (as OTS

ol ¥ ag vast 159 , and » 39% ie ee ipa ;

Ls rnere for ng t e

Shs pas fet Gane tip to inka i 5 9289 at

y hes use Ss

r 29) 994 Ot, 2990 »

Ti ; BT ential ot rae

Ca {iz oer a aan

Poh ait "the £ "ho uba is me rely & z

5 9

tn! act tha satay haces

pao U8 pet rogb iene AS ney

aes trav 19 fiat the be p in diiw

- oor Seacie Ai wit 0 2e%

WwW in >

Feat 1 ona a ott 9109 2 tTH0

{10 ot a4 i@{f

ae saath

in vi

MuBIO alive for

35 : R

pane RR RON RRR = pence Ad

if? Se ; i MX

i Detitioniriitiaoile enighte thet Gevtiats 046689 is un-

constitutional because it delegates broad’ legislative

‘power to’ ‘the Exeeutive ‘(Travis Br. 54-58). The

basic ‘deifgation ,claim was fully answered by this

Court in Zemel v. Rusk, 381 US. 1, 17-18, where a

grant to the Executive of even more general statutory

authority was deemed constitutionally permissible: in .

cause of its) “changeable and: explosive nature.’’..381

US.:at) Ti. That: consideration applies fully ‘here.

See, also, Chicago d&: Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Water-

man 8.8. Corp., 333 U.S: 108,109-110 ; Waited States.

V. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 324, « .

The claim that the broad authority which has always

been. thought permissible in the area of foreign. rela-

tions is.not appropriate when a eriminal statute is

involved (Travis Br. 54-55) ‘is beside the point. . For

in this statute Congress did not, delegate to the Secre-

tary, the power to create a erime. Congress defined

the crime—departing the United States without a

valid passport—and left to the Department ef State

the details concerning a passport’s validity. roid

Nor is there substance to. the claim that Section

215(b), unlike Section 2lla of Passport Act of 1926,

did not adopt the prior administrative practice as

a standard by which to define the powers it; delegated

(Travis Br. 56-58). The statute involved in this ease

was enacted more than a quarter of a.century after

the provision construed: in. Zemei, and» its “content” .

pao olin ea Reet sn 381. U8,, at 18.

MIs BNO SIT

~ “To the extent, in. other words, that Section 215(b) ent

powers the Executive to make “limitations and excep-

tions” and to’ the extent that it authorizes area restric-

“tions, they must be of the same kind as those with

which Congress was acquainted in 1952. Whether or

~ not the Department of State had specifically focused

on the imposition of eriminal penalties for violations

of area restrictions prior to 1952 is irrelevant. By

requiring “valid’”’ passports as a condition of depar-

ture Congress was empowering the Secretary of State

to continue to impose such conditions afid restrictions

- upon the validity of a passport as he had therefore

imposea, And area restrictions were, as we have

shown, among those with which Congress was well

acquainted.

Wieser 9 2

THE FAILURE TO CITE SECTION 215(b) IN THE PROMULGAT-

ING CLAUSE OF THE “EXCLUDING CUBA’ REGULATION

DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTE INAPPLICABLE

Petitioner Travis contends that she could not be

criminally prosecuted for having travéled to Cuba

because Section’ 215(b), statute providing the

criminal sanction, was not cited by the Secretary in

the promulgating clause of the ‘‘Excluding Cuba” reg-

ulation. Petitioner’s contention is that Section

215(c) authorizes criminal punishment only for the

violation of the statute itself or of regulattons issued

“thereunder” (p. 47, infra). Since the “Exeluding

Ctiba” regulation was allegedly not issued “under”

Section 215, it is argued that travel to Cuba could not.

bea cfime ‘(Travis Br. 46-54). ander lly

swers to this argument.

_ First, petitioner errs in assuming that she was con-

vieted of having violated a regulation. As her. in-

dictment demonstrates, she was accused of having vio-

lated the statute itself—Section 215(b)—by having

departed the United States without a valid passport

(TR. 1-2). Our theory is (pp. 11-15, supra) that one

element of the passport’s validity was whether travel

_ to petitioner’s destination had/bgen authorized... Sec-

tion 215 does not require that the Secretary expressly

invoke that provision whenever he establishes stand-

ards by which. passports are validated. if, for ex-

ample, a eitizen of the United States departs with an

unsigned or expixed passport or with one from whieh

his photograph was missing, he would be violating

the statute because his passport is invalid. at the time

of his departure. It. would hardly be a defense to

a progecution under Section 215(b) that the Secre-

tary did not invoke that statute when he made the

Sareler es signature .0:candition of a papepontio:te-

hdity.

dn vandianahdie-atvela-ehetabadanintieenmecio

215(a), demonstrates that .when Section 215(e)

speaks of violations of regulations it is referring not

to the standards of validity which the Secretary

prescribes but to the regujations, under which aliens

are permitted to enter and depart from the United

States under Section 215(a).(1) (p. 46, infra). That

clause delegates broad power to the Executive to es-

tablish the rules for such departure and‘entry, and

it is for Violation of these ‘rules that Section 215(c)’s

pravigien: concerning “permit{s], —_— or —

RE Sie ty Ne I es are

tion fs] issued thereutider” “provides # criminal sanc-

tion! This lafigtiage is inapplicable to petitioner; the

Seeretaty' was’ not) required, int ‘thier ‘words, to’aet

wndér the authority of Section 215! ‘in’ entabitidtoieg ”

penser ip sehrris Ateneo passports.) boris!

bedi. eatin diated a ounaaes vidindd Ed

violation’ ot 4 regulation which must, to’ be punishable

wnder: Section '215; be specifically promulgated under

‘the authority’ of that section, there was sufficient reti-

ative on Section 225 in the éfficial notice of ‘the “Ex-

cluding Cuba” regulation to ‘make ‘the’ statute appli-

éable.’ A®' printed ‘ir the Federal Register (26 F.R.

482), the official ‘reporter ‘of governmental regulation,

an exprésoreferenice to “See: 215, 66 Stat. 190; 8 U.S.C.

1185 and Executive Order 3004” follows the text of the

amended ‘regulations: Reference is also made to Sec-

tion 215 in'thé amended regulation ‘as printed in 22

C.F .R. 53.3 (pocket supplement). That this reference

appears in parentheses and ‘smaller type is attributable

to printing form and be taken as proof that the

Secretary of State did not rely on Section 215 in fram-

_. ing'the regulation. © inesIndie tO uaeote ee Beaaia

Regulations specifically provide that this form should

be followed in designating the authority for an indi-

onnaies Soianatal ipodmere OF R. xxv): é

M20 “Int getiéral; each’ section of the Code is ‘followed -

"bya titation of statutory authority under which

“29 ey frrhornapetretrwniers ‘* * * The authority for

ry om individual ‘seetion ‘is designated by enclosure

PDO Te A ALE RE

ini wi to. fejelg %. L Sct m9?" carries

20 |

The Code also, makes, this provision applicable tothe

printing. nse presenter a

OF BROKEN) * 38348 Hetin F oAt to

| ‘Authority wiemdgeitinadioanling shall ‘be

sited in parentheses on a separate tine immedi-

ately, following the. text,.of the segtion: *;*.,*,

Thins, ‘althongh ‘Section’ 215"'does' ‘not appear’ in’ the

public’ notice or press ‘release issued: by the Seeretary

of State, ii, shes 4 oe tential ae

tions of government Mgulations, sd hed zoittart

et «tf beteai ecw S60F TT ere at to abitcinshbotg

fidiiotq bas xnoitetrteot® Lemoitibbs oft

A. STATE OF. NATIONAL: EMERGENCY, HAD. REEN DROLAnED.

AND IT EXISTED AT THE TIME, OF PEFITIONER TRAYIS’

DEPARTURES - ra |

Benlioe ‘S15 apiphica,’br ite Aumann, daly’ dancing “mam

or national emergeney and after a finding and proela-

mation ‘by the: President ‘‘that the -interests of the

United States. require that: restrictiong: and prohibi-

tions in addition to those provided otherwise than by

this section bé imposed upon the departure of pendons

from and their entry, into the: United: States * *:*”

(p. 45, infra). ‘A national emergency: was-declared by

the President, on. .Dedember: 16, ‘1950: (Presidential

Proclamation: No, 2914, pp. 49-50, infra), and on. Jan-

Usry 17;-4953,.the President issuéd Presidential Proo:

lamation No. 800%, in\which he ‘found that additional

‘restrictions and. prohibitions’ upon the, departute.:of

persons from and entry into. the United States was re-

quired. by the national emergency’ (pp. 50-53, infra).

The. proctamation subjected the departure and entry.

of . citizens to the : regulations of ; the Secretary: of

State, who was: authorizéd ‘to revoke, modify’ or

of the United States to require” (pp. 52-53, infra).

ocThere is) no merjt whatever to petitioner Travis’

contention’that''the latter proclamation was inade-

quate because it failed specifically to advert to the

. need, for ..geographic¢c. area -restrictions (Travis Br.

' 65-66).,-Aswe have previously noted (p. 25, supra),

area restrictions’ upon travel to eight Iron Ourtain

countries had been imposed..in May 1952...When the

proclamation of January i, 1953 was issued, its ref-

erence t6 additional “restrictions and prohibitions”

must have been intended to include the aia limite-

tions which had “Gnly recently been felt necessary as

well as any oth@reasonable regulation the Secretary

might ingpose. In any ‘évent, the statute did net re- -

quire the Presidént to-enumerate in detail the kinds

of restrictions he believed appropriate; the “trigger’’

whieh brings Section 215 into ‘play is merely the find-

ing and eee ~_ “added ee are

needed. Cf bnaoqen

)Pétitioner’ Travis: also ¢contends that ndtwithetand:

ing ‘the President’s failure to repeal either ‘of the two

proclamations and the statute's directive that its limi-

tatidns apply “until otherwise ordéred by the Presi-

dent or the: Congress” \(p. 46; infra), this. Cotirt should

presently ‘ré-examine ‘the. basis ‘for thé “finding of na-

tional: emergency and ‘detvétmine “that it no longer

exists: (Pravis| Br\'66-69).°°The étatute howevely'ox-

ptessly éonfers ‘authority to términate ‘the sta

emergency (insofar as) it relates to Section 215)

tipon ‘the ‘President’ end: Oorigress ; the courts are\ai-

> / 3 41 a

signed no role in that regard. Moreover, determina-

tions such as these, involving an evaluation of the

international political scene, have always been thought

to be exclusively a matter for the Executive. See

~ Omitted States 'v. Curtis-Wright Corp., 299 U.S; 304;

_ Untted States v. Belmont, 3010.8. 824; United States

v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203; Chicago & Southern Air Lines,

Inc. v. Waterman S.S:. Corp. 333'U.8. 103.

ce) Oe tas

PETITIONER), TRAVIS VIOLATED, SECTION 215(b) _ EVEN,

THOUGH SHE DID NOT OBTAIN CUBA’S, PERMISSION TO

ENTER THAT COUNTRY UNTIL, AFTER HER DEPARTURES

FROM THE UNITED STATES

ae if, ;

There is, finally, no amdictiies to. salietonae Travis’

contention that Section, 215(b), did not apply. to, her

departure because she did not, as of the moment when

she crossed the border,’ have Cuba’s. consent ‘to her

entry -into: that country (Travis ‘Br. }69+72)... As we

have indicated. above (pp. 26-27, eupra), we. believe

that, \Seetion 215(b).,. makes .it..a.eriminal offense .to:

depart, from the United States,'with. the intention of,

traveling, either-immediately,or ultimately, to a desti-

" nation/to which, one’s: passport.is not valid, and. there-.

after to, enter, that. foreign country.., The traveler’s

"We also note, thatthe continued ,existence.of the national

emergency, has been, reaffirmed by. Presidents since the Korean.

War....On. November ; 29, ; President. Eisenhower issued,

Executive Order No. 10896: (3,C.F.R. (1960 Supp.)'89) and on ~

July-94;,1962,. President, Kennedy. issued, Executive Order. No,:

11087 5(3.C.F.R.. (1962 Supp.): 280). Both Orders refer to the ;

continue | existence of the national. :

| proclaimed. by..

Resident Tyasien tai Roaster O16, Dosa 1% 2900

a (37 ete HSA MG clidafory “e

~ practical obstacles: or restrictions: imposetl by: foreign

- > jewe do not} bear, on:thisoffense. If petitioner were!

able: to! avoid! Section :245{b) on: theiground that Ouba

‘had. not yet given its consent when she: departed the:

United’ States, . another\\traveler , would siniilarly: be

able:\to ‘claim! that, .as of the ‘time ‘of his:departure;

he did nt -yet\ possess the funds" which | enabled ‘hiny

to trave] to ‘Guba (although ‘he had every intétition of

earning them during his travels).”. Obviously such

circumstances are not a de ense because the gravamen

ofthe crime is departuté! with a: “specific intent—

which petitiouer cbndededly “had (TR. 80+51),'° The

subsequent eittry into thé Yoteigh couitry ttiay be an

essential element, but how probable ‘it was ‘at the ti ime

of departure is no part of thé offense.) i or ‘o

' The’ only! authority ‘eited: saaitaiott petitioner's

argument’ is‘ Hetkkinen. vi‘ United States; 3550.8):

273. ‘But’ in’'that ‘case the ‘Court ‘holding that there

cai bé no wilful failwre'to depart the United States:

until the country willing’ to receive the alien is identi-'

fied. Petitioner erronedusly! wttemps 'to draw frort

the Heikkinen \ease the negative: inferenos: that one)

- c&imét wilfully’ depart from thé United States until’

countty has uffvidlly signeedto: receive! hiin, »Wilful

failure to départ and wilful departure! are eritirely’

‘28 Similarly, | ‘Ainmecicink etfinensiiobald Hebel tothe oaivie Stgh-

See-seeue paper teil eet Co rae

Tope—to' which's pe: “It would ‘be an’ dbvious’

evasion of 22. if citizen! could’ “pettiest!

ia aw Vite ieee cho ‘eoanitry’ until ne hed ‘arrived in’:

‘contend! that sinée he was

aa ‘Minti he'werived jun Oat

~ Pelation ot Bion 2800)

different. 'Oneé gutinde wilfully fail'to depart when he

Yias nowberé to'go, but he can’ wilfully depart; without

‘a walid ‘passport, ‘regaitdless “of -whetlier.'thé’ euntry

of his destination: has! formally guarantee ee |

prior t6 his’ ‘departure. *

We: also note, with’ sisebict to petitioner Travis ent

theré is' substantial doubt inthe present state of the -

record whether she possessed any \passport ‘at’ all on

her depagtures from the United States. The stipula-

tion states only that she did not, atthe pertinent times,

- “bear ‘a valid United States ‘passport’ ‘specifically: en-

dorséd’ for travel to the Republic of ‘Ouba” (TR. 51).

Tt does not disclose whether she had an otherwise valid

‘passport or whether she had none. | The district judge

in Laub said that he| had been ‘advised that ‘she did

‘hot ‘possess ‘any’ unexpired passport (LR. 24), and we

have been advised ee Ee

port (see-note 2, supra, p. 5),..

due petitioner seonnied: any passport at all is —

: evant ‘to’ the principal ‘issue’ pres nted by these

ig a a Le ihe eal ey Ye a

abs valid’ passport which is invalid ‘for Cuba

are in no different posture with respect to’ departutes

for Cuba’ than citizens who possess no passport at all.

But if the Court should disagree, it would not follow

that departures for ees areas are not punishable

by-Section 215(b), if the departing traveler bears no

passport, whatever. Petitioner. was plainly no more

privileged to. travel ito Hayana without an unexpired

and unrevoked vthen to. travel to Paris, It

is- ‘stipulated that. she had knowledge of the “Exclud-

ing Cuba” regulation (TR: 51). ——

tnd © @i ‘

knew 'that Cuba was not one of the Western Hemi-

sphere: countries to which travel, without.a passport

‘is ‘permitted. , Even if; contrary to,our principal argu-

ment, she could not be criminally. punished for violat-

ing the area restriction imposed, on Cuba, she could

be'punished for. leaving for that, ultimate destination—

for which the President; provided no. ‘‘exceptions”—

port. | ie add tite argeh, Ti

» The: atinpelation: ‘is; ad..we have noted, unelear., in

these circumstances, even if the Court were to agree

with ‘the district court in Laub, we believe_itimould

be appropriate for .the; Travis: case to be remanded

under 28 US.C.'2106—either for. further proceedings

‘in which the meaning of the stipulation equld be,clari-

fied,.or for: a new trial on the indictment. . Bryan, v.

Sates States, S38 US. (SER, SH bostvba ned a 7edd

conte . ator saa) fod

gS h "> 50 > (fOr

_ For the, foregoing. reasons, it is resp uly sul

mitted rorpepansianay yi gun) pub

and. the judgment. in No. A%6 | should be reversed and

Piss iy Oy RM Thi 'y orf (tf ¢

» STOCK pba Ri vce

i oe 7 nip Yc, be

aldadeianra omens apets boletite

oi Baad io Fe riMBq

YroMk ork Nitighs inane Sotetor Genera.

basqaxonn, mactyottineg aay MT SMARONEY, 20) 4)

: oe ?

IE AeitaT BP fovert ete Li Keudw, 0 ee

~bufozcl” iit 2 £0. Awe Lar eS hy Bil aie Jad3 Attorneys...

Rs , |

(465 SIT) .crottsiireet “adsD ani

. ty

; ;

ne ’ [iS .2tirgix

ysinagt..ilerhe ” sie

APPENDIX: = toes

? t .

i fees) Se ey Se

Sravures, PROCLAMATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND

The Act of July 3, 1926, §.1, 44 Stat."887, 22 U.S.C.

211a, provides, in pertinent: part,.as follows: —

The Secretary of State may grant and issue

passports, and cause passports to be granted,

‘*. Issued, and. verified: in .foreign. countries by

diplomatie representatives of the United States,

and by such’ consul generals, consuls, “or vice

- consuls ‘whet in charge, as’ the Secretary of

;» State may designate, and by the chief or other

.» » executive .offiear. of, the ,insural possessions of

co the. United States,;;under- such rules. as the

__ President shall designate and prescribe for and

., | on behalf Of the United States,’ and no other

> o/dp@rson shall grant,” issab, ‘or ‘verify ‘stich pass-

Of j ports. am herr: if +9dKy: TO «TER: sh

Section 215 of the Immigration:and Nationality

Act of 1952; 66 Stat: 190;'8 TS.0: 1185, ‘provides, in

iti; Saito Frets}

ifguorls restrictions and/p ions in ad-

‘ov oh@ition t6 those provided otherwise than by this

section be imposed upon the departuresof per-

(45)

v8 0 shall find that the iorest oto United States

Mie 2 carinwiinapine

sons from and their entry into thé United

States, and shall make public proclamation

thereof, it shall, until otherwise ordered by the

President or the Congress, be unlawful—

~ (1) for any alien to depart from or enter or

attempt to depart from or enter the United

States except under such reasonable rules, reg-

ulations, and orders, and subject to such limita-

poe and exceptions as the President may pre-

scri

(2) "for any person to transport or attempt

to transport from or into the United States

another person with knowledge or reasonable

~ ¢ause to believe that the departure or entry of

such other person is forbidden by this section; -

«-tywkd), for person knowingly to make any

false sta ¢t in an application for permis-

sion to depart from or enter the United States

. with intent to\induce or secure the granting of

such permission either for himself or for an-

a) f knowingly. to furnish

or any person knowingly to furnish or

attempt. to furnish or assist in furnishing to

another a permit or evidence or permission to

depart or enter not issued and designed for

such other person’s use;

(5) for any person Jmowingly. to use or at-

tempt to use any permit or evidence of permis-

sion to depart or enter not issued and designed

.. for his use; ..

(6); for any. person to forge, counterfeit,

_» mutilate, or. alter, or cause or procure to be -

forged, . counterfeited, mutilated, or altered,

5 any permit or evidence:of permission to depart

from or enter the United States: — .

mes & ae Seah eaemenmeaniviteln: seme or st-

Pela Fins pwr aes 508 -another for use anv.

er forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or al-*

ee Eon meaian’ ch any

permission 0

Eels

CITIZENS

)

(b) After such tee as is provided

efor in subsection (a of is section has been

any citizen of the United States to-depart from

or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter,

the United States unless he bears a valid pass-

port.

PENALTIES

(ec) Any person who shall wilfully violate

any of the provisions of this section, or of any

order or proclamation of the President promul-

gated, or of any permit, rule, or regulation’ is-

sued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be

fined not more than $5,000, or, if a natural per-

son, imprisoned for not more than; five, years,

or both; _ the eg tie ne or sarod of

any corporation who knowingly pertetpe in

_ such violation shall be punished by like fine or

imprisonment or both; and any.vehiele,) vessel,

| or aircraft together with its ‘ap ces,

equipment, tackle, apparel, and furniture, con-

“cerned in any such violation, shall be forfeited

to the United States.

DEFINITIONS

f insular,

ed States.

be deemed'to mean a P Raimanae Roots : ochip,

: - a S Ci tion, y p ny, or other i “ol

Dagy duals, or corporation, or body

wos PS

id 434 T ;

; ra ~* : ry . t 2 ' -

: ; gs ‘7 Ss eas lace Sih iMts 3 3 rs SLOG

rive?

sat =

ee et ee re a eer

NoNADMISSION OF CERTAIN ALIENS

babirow (gy ® ‘im this ‘section ‘shall be nee

0990 4gkrued to: an alien to whom a

: Ie ro Pasay reg yas ga sd to ener

the United St founk t0 be a

te eatomre x Hn Hea cof

f) The revocation of any proclamation,

hes ere or order issued in pursuance

oa this section not prevent prosecution for

any offense committed, or the imposition of any

penalties or forfeitures, liability for which was

Section 156 of 5°U.S.C. provides as follows:

Management of foreign affairs. The Secre-

cocks tiene te mn ow gear arene

51.75, R ial bs s ioses pack Sit fess

wa % 5 Bee is authorized Sir: discretion

oS tenia x4 to restrict a pass-

gor for ue oly countries, té with-

w or cancel a pespart already fa issued, and

to withdraw a for the purpose of re-

stricting its ts validity or tise in certain cotintries.

ih Sete Violation of passport restrictions.

Should a person to whom a passport has been

knowingly use or attempt to use it in

_ Violation of the conditions or restrictions con-

tained thetein or of the provisions of the rules

in this part, the protection of the United States

may be withdrawn from him while he continues

~ to reside abroad.

§51.77 Secretary of pes, ace te

make regulations. e Secre Oo

_ State Pr euthexineh to make tions on the

mie of issuing, porta. b amend-

ina tether of Hot incon.

; sistent f therewith.

PR ce EE a a

1950, 64 Stat ‘Adb4,, providds,;in pertinent part, as.

follows:

~ A Procramation , sical a

2.17¥ 6 aiabiad tet thaaind ine aiethande ‘atent

- Hhe"Neeld and imperil th forts oat ae

bayer Bint 8 po

rein world “conquest fy ceninibivinist. in

et y ere

have been Iodsed- upon the

Wuereas if the. communist imperial-

* gees

P would no | the full and rich

have “with” ae > built for them-

_.. Fight of free speech ener er Toht to criti.

. Gize their Government, the right to engage

roy in_ collective bargaining, the right to en-’

pin yi freely in their own business enterprises,

and the many other freedoms and rights which

are a part of our way of life; and

Wuereas the increasing menace of the forces

| of communist aggression requires that the na-

tional apie of the nite States be

ened as speedily as possible:

-. Now, Baker's TRUMAN, Presi-

i THEREFORE,

dent of the United tea? of America, do pro-

claim the existence of a national emer-

Ane ee

a * * 7 .

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

my: hand and caused the Seal of the United

States of to be affixed.

' Done. atthe City of Washington this 16th

day of December, mated eet Bhi sect ot the

Lord nineteen hundred fifty, and of the

Independence of the United States of America

’ the one hundred and seventy-fifth:

Harry S. TRUMAN.

Presidential Pro¢lamation No. 3004, January 17,

1953, . 67 Stat. C31, “Controlvof Persons Leaving or

rit wo ater srt erin reli ge ad

-ti joie «of the Immigrati

' ok ~-o-and Nationality ‘Aet, enacted on June 27, 1952

bu@Publie: Law 414, 82nd Congress; 66 Stat. 163,

190), authorizts the President''to impose re-

strictions and prohibitions in addition to those

otherwise provided by that Act upon the depar-

ture of and their entry into, the

United States when United States is at war

or during the existence of any national emer-

gency proclaimed by the President or, as to

aliens, whenever there exists a state of war be-

MH or among two or more states, and when

President find that the interests of the

United States so — and

. 180. by rene proclaimed on: December 6;

1950, by Proclamation 2914 still exists;

HEREAS because af the exigencies of the in-

November 14, 1941, imposed | in restric-

eparture

of persons from and their entry into the United

3B.

ner

Hae

Te ets

SPA

ite S

a Per)

bes

eit

Perite 2

gee ed is

herr ssttnariead to ha modify,

such regulations as hé may find the

cof the United States to require.

departure of anetn: from the United

including, the fines: 70 ne, and all terri-

or insular, subject

United States, shall

Becta at Stake with the the coneurrence of the

‘\Atterney General, ris published as sections

53.61 to 53.71, inclusive, of title 22 of the Code

| [ok ideal Miia, finek deviations are

, Memon corporated, into and. made.a part of

. roclamation; and the Secretary of State,

¢coneurrence of the Attorney General,

134 hereby. authorized. to revoke, (modify, or

.;-apend gue: regulations as he may find"the in-

s r

sages

EFE ce

aes

Eeee

ol TTaatonsed to ced

dtirv 2cebto. bas. wasottghrest. «oi: 2a paaliot :

:olatadt tesoqeayt

COT. pepuilations: as: ies “mnbny: fal me vente of the

C9 1 United States to require. «0 0

s eaiage horteth oft 10 weg ; ats

ie! 'T hereby ig at picts n-

.., Ges of the @ de

.,, Secretary of State aul-

thority under this hel mdr, sats any subse-

uent pro¢ tion, rule, regulation, or order

2 edn lane ursuae hereof; Brin such. depart-

het Satie shale $+ 3p eee

eval . Secretary of State fo for that

vices of the of their respective officials

“and abe wig enjoin upon ‘all officers of the

U1 T States charged’ with the execution _

the laws thereof the utmost: diligence in p

. venting violations of section 215 of the Tmmi-

” grati@n and Jationelity Act and this ‘procla-

mation, includi ing | the ues ons of the Secre-

tary of State herein and made a

ede hereot and i in. f bringitié to trial and ag

hment. any persons Ring: any provision o

that section po fits on. F

ee the oxinit pare tted hy. law, this ‘procla-

5 huh Aa ed r 24,

Sections 53.1538 a 22 One, provide, in “pertinent

part, an follows: Lssgle

“Part Travel | Control or Citizens and

Nationals in Time of ‘War or fam Emer-

gency : : oy rttre , bef i

States”. The term ‘(United States’? as used in

: pee tary nudes the Cane) Sere, 406 al Rez,

pe donot the Uni

/ § 53.8

§ 53.3 ‘Brcept tons to regulations in § 58.2.

| -No vali passport shall be required of a citizen

. of the. U States or of a person who owes

valence, to the United States:

(a); When traveling between the continental

" Dnited States: and the Territory of Hawaii, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is-

: ge) and Gpam, or between any such places;

oF Ob) When “traveling between the United

States and any country, territory or island ad-

jacent. thereto in ‘North, Central, or South

America, excluding Cuba: Provided, That this

" exception. shall not be applicable to an any si _

) n when traveling to or arriving

place, outside the U States fon which ;

valid passport is required under this part, if

, such travel is accomplished via any country or

.. territory in North, Central, or South America

or any island adjacent thereto: And

also, That this eva shall not be! applicable

to any seaman seaman. except as provided. j in, paragraph

» €e) te Whos depastin OP iin ?

departing from or entering the

United States in i “io the a ig on sea-

a _ sion of a speciall yvali United erat ere

»'* \¢hantmariner’s docume issued by the United

rt “at imawec en rd; ‘or’ ‘

Feit

8 defined in 53.1. mr ct f t-

tee tet, eubeection is $25.

§53.5 Prevention of f depiartir® from or n-

try into the United States.

§ 53.6 Attemp iecpee sen

acres ell nc dee na yan

$53. 8 Disorelii exercise 0 lihbrit

fe cont matters. Nothing in of athe aan

construed to prevent the flenetay at of State

- from exercising the’ discretion resting in him

to refuse to’ issue a passport, to restrict its use

to certain~countries, to withdraw or cancel a

passport’ already. at or to map) a

port for the Sa send restricting its validity

or use in certain cqyntries.

Public Notice 179, 26,Fed, Reg, 492, pppeaulgated

on J. january 16, 1961, provides:

“DepaRTMENT oF STATE | ‘

2 pe blic Notice 179] |

nited States Citizens

Restrictions on Travel to or in Cuba»

In’ -view of the’ conditions in ‘Cuba

‘and in the absence of diplomatic ‘relations be-

tween that country and the' United: States of

- America I find that the unrestricted ‘travel by

United States ‘citizens to or:in ‘Cuba Would ~

“contrary ‘to 'the ‘foreign ‘policy ‘of ‘the United

ons _ Therefore pursuit to the authority vested in

LES @ by Sections 124 and 126°of Executive Order

: No. ‘7856, issued om Mareh’81, '1988)(3 BR. 681,

| 687,22 OPR 5175 and51.77) under ex authority

of of Goria 1 of the (Act: ot 0 roved

ai bot ‘States to

“) - he invalid for 'to‘or ‘im Ouba ex¢ept the

paseports ———een noomassiepaet in

0S sey

sere Guba, Upon. départuré of sueh citizens from

oS 2 Cube a echt to this

en -

> gia air ev

~K9 08 ape Cae comer rapes

ity of the te or this order

; is revoked. ,

Dated: Fenvary 6 1961 aatpatny”

Hor the Beervtary of a ae 3

Lox. HENDERSON,

Under Secretary f

Dept Under Sere ed

Press Release: No: 4, ‘insitéd by the ‘Secretary of

State on January 16, 1961, provides: ae

Press Rettdse No. ‘Bape

ya he ‘Depattmetit’ of State atinounced today

that in view of the’ eee Srey acre

inability, following the break.:in-diplomatic vy

lations between the Umited. States and @uba, to

extend normal protective . services +to | Ameri-

cans visiting Cuba, United States-citizens desir-

of) ding pto-igo to, Ouba mast until. furéher notice

-- -« @btain passports ‘specifieally endersed,,by the

- \-Department.of State for:such travel.,..All out-

| | standing’ passports,; except; those,.of ) United

| @tatés citizens remaining in,Cuba; are being

“tin J dedlaned ‘invalid, for. travel; to Cuba. Hniges spe-

ot of Cisioaliy coxlennet fom tite tenvel:

rtment contemplates, ‘that. excep-

+ Om serdicmiiote regniations, will) he granted to

br ‘whose travel may. be| regarded as being

| the best interests of the United States, such

ti re newsmeti OF ‘businessmen; with previously es-

> otc tablished; business interests. : «| ).

In o) {cPermanent , resident’ aliens cannot, travel to

o} ae : Oubay unless special, is, obtaimed for

ott $ | gi pe pr Im-

ci wodmigration and: Naturalization Service.

57 :

Federal regulations are being amended to put

these requirements into effect.

These actions have been taken in conformity

with the Department’s normal practice of limit-

ing travel to those countries with which the

United States does not maintain diplomatic

relations. ,

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1966

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.