https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5 en-us 2020-11-20 15:44:48 UTC 2020-11-20 19:49:49 UTC hello@padlet.com dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/945749594 Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associates Justices:
(Front row, from left)
Tom C. Clark
Hugo L. Black
Earl Warren
William O Douglas
John M. Harlan
(Back row, from left)
Byron R.White
William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart
Arthur J. Goldberg ]]> 2020-11-20 15:46:33 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/945749594 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/945783624 > Rockwell Kent repeatedly applied for and was refused a passport to visit England because of his.

Communist Party affiliations.
> The Passport Office Director told Kent that in order for a passport to be issued a hearing would be necessary. The Director instructed Kent to submit an affidavit as to whether he was a current or past Communist.

> Kent sued in the District Court for declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent. On appeal the case of Kent was heard with that of Dr. Walter Briehl.

> The Act of July 3, 1926 and § 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, do not delegate to the Secretary
authority to withhold passports. 

> The Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. ]]> 2020-11-20 15:53:37 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/945783624 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946191239 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision: The right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.]]> 2020-11-20 17:15:52 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946191239 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946343459 2020-11-20 17:47:44 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946343459 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946370173 1. That his "political affiliations" were irrelevant to his right to a passport

2. That "every American citizen has the right to travel regardless of politics"

3. The burden was on the Department to prove illegal activities by Briehl. ]]> 2020-11-20 17:53:34 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946370173 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946460892 > A Communist who participated in communist activies  and Communist party celebrations, should not be able to travel
*Couldn't really find this* 

]]> 2020-11-20 18:13:17 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946460892 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946519733 Q: Could the Executive's Passport Department defer or refuse the issuance of passports to individuals suspected of being Communists or of traveling abroad to further Communist causes?

A: No, the Court held that the right to travel is an inherent element of "liberty" that cannot be denied to American citizens. Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy.
Vote: 4-5]]> 2020-11-20 18:26:09 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946519733 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946536953 Majority Opinion written by Justice William O. Douglas
> Cited Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel, and that except in wartime "for most of our history, a passport was not a condition to entry or exit" concluding that the issuance of passports is "a discretionary act" on the part of the Secretary of State
> Cited Crandall v. Nevada Williams v. Fears, Edwards v. California, and Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13-14. Although all the cases it cited involved interstate travel, the Court concluded that although "Freedom to travel is, indeed, an important aspect of the citizen's "liberty" it need not decide the extent to which it can be curtailed because it was first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress had authorized its curtailment.]]> 2020-11-20 18:29:59 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946536953 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946666936 Dissenting Opinions Authored by  Tom Clark with Burton
Historically Congress meant the Secretary to deny passports to those whose travel abroad would be contrary to American national security both in wartime and during peace, pointing out that passport restrictions on Communists were first implemented shortly after the 1917 Russian Revolution and continued periodically until 1952
Concurring Opinions Authored by Harlan and Whitaker   
Passport denials here were beyond the pale of congressional authorization because they do not involve grounds either of allegiance or criminal activity.]]> 2020-11-20 18:57:56 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946666936 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946777429 Judicial Activism
> This Court decision clarified a citizen's liberty under the Fifth Amendment, confirming the right to travel
>  Used cases like Browder v. United States, which involved passport and traveling rights and applied it to Kent's argument. ]]> 2020-11-20 19:23:30 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946777429 dmeral9181 https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946795040 The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Kent v. Dulles was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.]]> 2020-11-20 19:27:36 UTC https://padlet.com/dmeral9181/72un0bn17ul8v2k5/wish/946795040