# Brief for the United States — Travis v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386412_0057%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the United States - **Published:** January 1, 1967 - **Citation:** 385 U.S. 491 ## Text Page 1 a ett (f Questions sceemeaiinds Zsichadhacisacahididenale bun 2 Statutes, proclamations, executive, oniens and } | 3 3 6 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 @ a 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 4 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... . -- i + 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 aR 34 32 44 35, 41 27, 28 42 14 * 82 u* Cases—Continued heute oe ,290913 ee 0} © United - States» wv. Ctirtis-W right, Corp,;; 299 U.S. 304) } 2 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 a 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 — e 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¢ 5. 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 6 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- “\ qT -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 a t 7 8B \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 4 oa CL ~ —- o 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 : 10 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 12 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 13 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 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 © thanothatto! whieh the traveler is destined?! A doew: - 15 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 16 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 © Worthy, @ ‘newsman, traveled to Cuba” without a passport. 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, 1% 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 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- e 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 Yr ¥3 ~~ 24 '° 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 © to issue a passport, to restrict its use to certain countries, to withdraw or cancel a passpogt al- » Teady issued, or to withdraw a passport for the 25 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-vilidsDepartabut 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 © wore eames Wil ot suggest that Section 215(b | ad re 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 he 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 / 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. | 37 _ 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 38 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 7 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 Lr a 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 ¢ 42 ~ 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 ‘ 44 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”— ce 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 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 47 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- or 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 i 50 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, 51 190), 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 e- F 7 re 4 1 3B. 85 : u ee cs He ner fs +? ee 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- RE 1H 3 ae Hl Hi ie gs 26 ae s r iE sages EFE ce ie aes Eeee at ol TTaatonsed to ced dtirv 2cebto. bas. wasottghrest. «oi: 2a paaliot : :olatadt tesoqeayt 53 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 u* 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 ©) (ove Sul $:1926"(44 Stat: '887, 22 “19 a), all ai bot ‘States to “) - he invalid for 'to‘or ‘im Ouba ex¢ept the paseports ———een noomassiepaet in 0S sey Ty 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386412_0057%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.