## Facts

- Ernest Mandel, a Belgian journalist and self-described revolutionary Marxist, was deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act provisions excluding aliens who advocate or publish doctrines of world communism.
- On prior occasions, the Attorney General had granted discretionary waivers allowing Mandel to enter despite statutory ineligibility.
- During Mandel’s 1968 visit, the government alleged he engaged in “unscheduled activities” beyond the visa’s permitted scope and waiver conditions.
- In 1969–1970, U.S. professors and students invited Mandel to speak at academic conferences and lectures; he applied for a nonimmigrant visa.
- The State Department initially refused the visa, later recommended a waiver, but the Attorney General denied the waiver, citing Mandel’s 1968 activities as the basis.
- Mandel was not admitted; at least one planned address was delivered by telephone from abroad.
- Mandel and the U.S. citizen invitees sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting the denial violated the citizens’ First Amendment rights to receive information and ideas.
- A three-judge district court held the citizen plaintiffs had a First Amendment right to have Mandel enter to speak and enjoined enforcement of the exclusion as applied.
- Federal officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether denial of a discretionary waiver to admit an otherwise excludable alien violated U.S. citizens’ First Amendment rights to hear and meet with the alien speaker in person.
2. Whether courts may invalidate or override the Executive’s application of Congress’s exclusion scheme when U.S. citizens assert First Amendment interests affected by the exclusion decision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the injunction and upheld the Attorney General’s denial of a waiver.
- The Court reaffirmed Congress’s plenary authority to exclude aliens and to delegate conditional admission authority to the Executive.
- Because the Attorney General denied the waiver based on a facially legitimate and bona fide reason (Mandel’s prior violation of waiver conditions), the judiciary would not look behind the stated reason or balance it against the citizens’ First Amendment interests.
- The Court did not recognize an enforceable constitutional right of U.S. citizens that compelled admission of an excluded alien invited to speak.

## Legal Principles

- The political branches have primary control over alien exclusion and entry conditions; judicial review is highly limited in this domain.
- When the Executive exercises congressionally delegated exclusion authority and provides a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying admission, courts will not probe the decision’s underlying motives or reweigh it against asserted First Amendment interests.
- U.S. citizens may have First Amendment interests in receiving information and ideas from foreign speakers, but those interests do not require admission of an alien who is excludable under valid statutes when the Executive gives a qualifying reason for denial.
- An alien outside the United States seeking initial entry generally has no independent constitutional right to be admitted.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Attorney General’s refusal to waive Mandel’s statutory ineligibility was not subject to further judicial scrutiny once supported by a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, and that U.S. citizens’ desire to hear Mandel in person did not overcome the political branches’ authority to exclude him.


Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)