Speech #910290726

We do not know. The legislative history is more conflicting than the text is ambiguous. But the difficulty with any argument premised on the proposition that the deportation statute does not require a hearing is that. without such hearing. there would be no constitutional authority for deportation. The constitutional requirement of procedural due process of law derives from the same source as Congress power to legislate and. where applicable. permeates every valid enactment of that body. It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago held that an antecedent deportation statute must provide a hearing at least for aliens who had not entered clandestinely and who had been here some time even if illegally. The Court said: "This is the reasonable construction of the acts of Congress here in question. and they need not be otherwise interpreted. In the case of all acts of Congress. such interpretation ought to be adopted as. without doing violence to the import of the words used. will bring them into harmony with the Constitution." The Japanese Immigrant Case. 189 U.S. 86. 101. We think that the limitation to hearings "required by statute" in � 5 of the Adninistrative Procedure Act exempts from that sections application only those hearings which administrative agencies may hold by regulation. rule. custom. or special dispensation. not those held by compulsion. We do not think the limiting words render the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable. to hearings. the requirement for which has been read into a statute by the Court in order to* save the statute from invalidity. They exempt .hearings of less than statutory authority. not those of more than statutory authority. We would hardly attribute to Congress a purpose to be less scrupulous about the fairness of a hearing necessitated by the Constitution than one granted by -it as a matter of expediency. Indeed. to so construe the Immigration Act might again bring it into constitutional jeopardy.. When the Constitution requires a hearing. it requires a fair one. one beforera tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of Impartiality. A deportation hearing involves issues basic to human liberty and happiness and. in the present upheavals in lands. to which aliens may be returned. perhaps to life itself. It might be difficult to justify as measuring up to constitutional standards of impartiality a hearing tribunal for deportation proceedings the like of which has been condemned by Congress as unfair even where less vital matters of property rights are at stake. We hold that the Administrative Procedure. Act. � 5. does cover deportation proceedings conducted by the Immigration Service. v The remaining question is whether the exception of � 7(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act exempts deportation hearings held before immigrant inspectors. It provides: "SEC. 7. In hearings which section 4 or 5 requires to be conducted pursuant to this section"(a) PRESIDING OFICERS.-There shall preside at the taking of evidence (1) the agency. (2) one or more members of the body which comprises the agency. or (3) one or more examiners appointed as provided in this Act. but nothing in this Act shall be deemed to supersede the conduct of specified classes of proceedings in whole or part by or before boards or other officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute. � 60 Stat. 237. 241. 5 U.S.C. � 1006. The Government argues that immigrant inspectors are "specially provided for by or designated pursuant to" � 16 of the Immigration Act. which. In pertinent part. reads: "... The inspection .... of aliens. including those seeking admission or readmission to or the privilege of passing through or residing in the United States. and the examination of aliens arrested within the United States under this Act." shall be conducted by immigrant inspectors. except as hereinafter provided in regard to boards of special Inquiry .... Said inspectors shall have power to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence touching the right of any alien to enter. reenter. pass through. or reside in the United States. and. where such action may be necessary. to make a written record of such evidence. . . ." 39 Stat. 874. 885. as amended. 8 U.S.C. � 152. Certainly nothing here specifically provides that immigrant Inspectors shall conduct deportation hearings or be designated to do so. This language does direct them to conduct border inspections of aliens seeking admission. They may administer oaths and take. record. and consider evidence. But these functions are indispensable to investigations which are concededly within their competence. And these functions are likewise necessary to enable the preparation of complaints for prosecutive purposes. But that Congress by grant of these powers has specially constituted them or provided for their designation as hearing officers in deportation proceedings does not appear. Section 7(a) qualifies as presiding officers at hearings the agency and one or more of the members of the body comprising the agency. and it also leaves untouched any others whose responsibilities and duties as hearing officers are established by other statutory provision. But if hearings are to be had before employees whose responsibility and authority derives from a lesser source. they must be examiners whose independence and tenure are so guarded by the Act as to give the assurances of neutrality which Congress thought would guarantee the impartiality of the administrative process. We find no basis in the purposes. history ortext of this Act for judicially declaring an exemption in favor of deportation proceedings from the procedural safeguards enacted for general application to administrative agencies. We hold that deportation proceedings must conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act if resulting orders are to have validity. Since the proceeding in the case before us did not comply with these requirements. we sustain the writ of habeas corpus and direct release of the prisoner. [ Reversed ]