## Facts

- Three long-time lawful permanent residents—William Harisiades, Luigi Mascitti, and William Coleman—were ordered deported under § 22 of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act).
- The government alleged that, after entering the United States, each became a member of the Communist Party, treated as an organization advocating overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence.
- Harisiades entered in 1916 as a child, later married, had U.S.-citizen children, worked continuously in the United States, and held organizational roles in the Party; his membership ended before the 1940 Act.
- Mascitti entered in 1920 as a teenager; Coleman entered in 1914; both allegedly joined the Communist Party after entry and ended membership before the deportation proceedings.
- Petitioners argued that deportation based on terminated, pre-1940 membership was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment (due process), First Amendment (speech/association), and the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- Lower courts rejected the challenges and upheld the deportation orders.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress may constitutionally authorize deportation of a lawful permanent resident for Communist Party membership that ended before enactment of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, consistent with the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
2. Whether deportation on a membership ground unconstitutionally burdens First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.
3. Whether applying the statute to pre-enactment membership violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments sustaining the deportation orders.
- Congress acted within its constitutional authority in authorizing deportation of legally resident aliens based on Communist Party membership, even if membership ended before the 1940 Act.
- The statute, as applied, did not violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The statute, as applied, did not abridge First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly.
- The statute did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because deportation was treated as a civil consequence rather than criminal punishment.
- The Court rejected procedural objections, including claims based on the Administrative Procedure Act and objections to combined administrative roles where consent had been given.

## Legal Principles

- Control over admission and expulsion of aliens is primarily committed to the political branches; judicial review is highly limited in this domain.
- Deportation may be imposed as a civil, regulatory measure based on congressional determinations of alien “undesirability,” including determinations tied to past affiliations.
- The Ex Post Facto Clause constrains criminal punishment; labeling and treating deportation as civil removes it from ex post facto limits as applied in this context.
- First Amendment protections do not bar Congress from using organizational membership as a ground for deportation when Congress deems the affiliation dangerous in the immigration context.
- Due process does not require invalidation of a deportation statute solely because it inflicts severe hardship on long-resident aliens, if Congress’s classification is not constitutionally impermissible in the immigration setting.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld deportation of lawful permanent residents for past Communist Party membership that ended before the Smith Act’s enactment, holding that Congress’s broad immigration authority permitted the measure and that it did not violate due process, the First Amendment, or the Ex Post Facto Clause because deportation was treated as a civil immigration consequence.


Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952)