TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Gruber

Ex Parte Gruber, 269 U.S. 302 (1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
January 4, 1926
Judges
Sutherland
Citations
269 U.S. 30246 S. Ct. 11270 L. Ed. 2801925 U.S. LEXIS 30

Opinion — Sutherland

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1940: 11961: 11965: 11979: 12024: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Samuel Shibli Haddad v. United States349 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1965)
  2. Farnsworth v. Sanford115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940)
  3. United States v. Melekh193 F. Supp. 586 (N.D. Ill. 1961)
  4. Transportation of Executive Branch Officials by Government Passenger Motor Vehicles(OLC Aug. 27, 1979)
  5. Patrick Roether v. State of GeorgiaNo. 22-13731 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2024)

Most recent

  1. Patrick Roether v. State of GeorgiaNo. 22-13731 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2024)
  2. Transportation of Executive Branch Officials by Government Passenger Motor Vehicles(OLC Aug. 27, 1979)
  3. Samuel Shibli Haddad v. United States349 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1965)
  4. United States v. Melekh193 F. Supp. 586 (N.D. Ill. 1961)
  5. Farnsworth v. Sanford115 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1940)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Davis v. Packard, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 276 (1833) 47
Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N.Y. 576 (1853) 16
Milward v. McSaul, 17 F. Cas. 425 (S.D.N.Y. 1846) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list