Kleindienst v. Mandel

1. Your professor believes this case is highly relevant to the recent case of Trump v. Hawaii and to much of contemporary immigration debate. Why might that be?

2. The Douglas dissent proceeds on grounds of constitutional avoidance and interprets the immigration statutes to protect those who want to listen to Mandel. The Marshall dissent meets the constitution head on and finds the first amendment wins. Which approach do you prefer? Suppose Congress passed the statutes making clear that no communists of those espousing communism could enter the United States. Would that be constitutional? Does it matter if we substitute "Jihadism" or "destruction of the State of Israel" or "criticism of President Trump" or "Libertarianism"?

Supreme Court of the United States

408 U.S. 753, 33 L. Ed. 2d 683, 92 S. Ct. 2576, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 22, SCDB 1971-177

No. 71-16

1972-06-29

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.