Ex Parte Gruber

269 U.S. 302, 46 S. Ct. 112, 70 L. Ed. 280, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 30
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 4, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 U.S. 302 (Ex Parte Gruber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Gruber, 269 U.S. 302, 46 S. Ct. 112, 70 L. Ed. 280, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 30 (1926).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sutherland

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to file a petition and for a rule directing Albert Halstead, Consul General of. the United States at Montreal, Canada, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding -him to visa the passport or the certificate of origin and identity presented to him by one Rosa Porter, a citizen of Russia, who recently arrived in Montreal from Russia and from whom petitioner, a relative, desires a visit in the United States of several months’ duration. We do not review the averments of the petition, since, other questions aside, it is clear that this court is without original jurisdiction.

Article III, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides that this court shall have original jurisdiction “ in all cases . affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” Manifestly, this refers to diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the United States by foreign powers, not to those representing this country abroad. Milward v. McSaul, 17 Fed. Cas. 425, 426, No. 9624. The ’provision, no doubt, was inserted in view of the important and sometimes delicate nature of our relation.*, and intercourse with foreign governments. It is a privilege, not of the official, but of the sovereign or government which' he represents, accorded from high considerations of public policy, considerations which plainly do not apply to the United States in its own territory. See generally Davis v. *304 Packard, 7 Pet. 276, 284; Marshall v. Critico, 9 East 447; Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 576, 578; The Federalist, No. 80, Ford’s Ed., pp. 531, 532-533, 537.

The application is denied for want of original jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Samuel Shibli Haddad v. United States
349 F.2d 511 (Ninth Circuit, 1965)
United States v. Melekh
193 F. Supp. 586 (N.D. Illinois, 1961)
Farnsworth v. Sanford
115 F.2d 375 (Fifth Circuit, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 U.S. 302, 46 S. Ct. 112, 70 L. Ed. 280, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-gruber-scotus-1926.