## Facts

- A labor union and several alien union members domiciled in the continental United States worked seasonally in Alaska fish canneries.
- They challenged the government’s construction of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 § 212(d)(7), fearing that alien members returning from Alaska could be treated as first-time entrants.
- Plaintiffs alleged that this interpretation threatened their members’ contract and property rights.
- The case was submitted on stipulated facts.
- The record did not show that § 212(d)(7) had been applied to any identified member, that sanctions had been initiated, or that an occasion for enforcement had arisen.

## Issues

1. Whether a pre-enforcement request for declaratory and injunctive relief, based on feared future application of § 212(d)(7), presented an Article III “case or controversy.”
2. Whether federal courts may determine a statute’s scope and constitutionality before it has caused an adverse effect in a concrete, fact-specific dispute.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss for want of a “case or controversy.”
- The Court held that plaintiffs sought an advance ruling on a statute that had not been applied to them and whose sanctions had not been set in motion.
- The requested relief would have amounted to an advisory opinion about hypothetical future enforcement.
- Because the jurisdictional defect was dispositive, the Court did not reach other objections (including standing, indispensable party, or exclusivity of habeas in deportation-related matters).
- Justice Black dissented, viewing the threatened injury as sufficiently imminent to justify merits review.

## Legal Principles

- Article III requires a concrete dispute; federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions about contingent future applications of a statute.
- The Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand constitutional limits on federal judicial power; declaratory relief still requires a definite, non-abstract controversy.
- Pre-enforcement challenges are not justiciable where the alleged harm depends on uncertain future events and the statute has not imposed, or immediately threatens to impose, an adverse effect in a concrete case.
- Courts avoid premature constitutional adjudication when enforcement may never occur or may occur under materially different facts.

## Conclusion

The Court dismissed the action because no concrete enforcement action or immediate threat had materialized, making the request for injunctive and declaratory relief an impermissible attempt to obtain a judicial ruling on hypothetical future application of an immigration statute.


International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Loc. 37 v. Boyd, 347 U.S. 222 (1954)