Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Hyun v. Landon, District Director, Immigration And Naturalization Service

1955 • 350 U.S. 990 • Warren Court
In the 1955 case Hyun v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant who had been ordered to be deported due to his past membership in a communist organization. The petitioner, John Karel Hyun was a Korean national who had lived in the United States for over three decades and served honorably during World War II. He admitted that he joined a Communist Party while studying at university but left after realizing its true...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1955
Docket: 201
350 U.S. 990
76 S. Ct. 541
100 L. Ed. 2d 856
1956 U.S. LEXIS 1205
Argued: Mar 05, 1956

Hyun v. Landon, District Director, Immigration And Naturalization Service

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1955 case Hyun v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant who had been ordered to be deported due to his past membership in a communist organization. The petitioner, John Karel Hyun was a Korean national who had lived in the United States for over three decades and served honorably during World War II. He admitted that he joined a Communist Party while studying at university but left after realizing its true nature. The court held that mere past membership without any evidence of disloyalty or subversive activity did not constitute grounds for deportation under immigration laws then in force.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Hyun v. Landon, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a violation of due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that deportation is a severe penalty akin to exile or banishment and should not be imposed without adequate safeguards in place. The justice believed that an alien who has been lawfully admitted into the country should have all constitutional protections available to him/her, including protection from arbitrary government action. In this case, he felt it was unjust for Mr. Hyun to face deportation based on his past membership in an organization which had since been declared illegal but wasn't at the time of his involvement. Furthermore, he emphasized that there were no allegations or evidence suggesting Mr.Hyun posed any threat to national security nor engaged in subversive activities during his stay in America; hence deporting him would be unfair and unwarranted.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms