Syllabus.

WONG YANG SUNG v. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

No. 154. Argued December 6, 1949.-Decided February 20, 1950. 1. Administrative hearings in proceedings for the deportation of aliens must conform to the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1001 et seq. Pp. 35–53.

2. The history of this Act discloses that it is remedial legislation which should be construed, so far as its text permits, to give effect to its remedial purposes where the evils it was aimed at appear. Pp. 36-41.

3. One of the fundamental purposes of the Act was to ameliorate the evils resulting from the practice of commingling in one person the duties of prosecutor and judge. Pp. 41-45, 46.

4. A hearing in a proceeding for the deportation of an alien was presided over by a "presiding inspector" of the Immigration Service, who had not investigated that particular case but whose general duties included the investigation of similar cases. There being no "examining inspector" present to conduct the prosecution, it was the duty of the "presiding inspector" to conduct the interrogation of the alien and the Government's witnesses, cross-examine the alien's witnesses, and "present such evidence as is necessary to support the charges in the warrant of arrest." It might become his duty to lodge an additional charge against the alien and hear the evidence on that charge. After the hearing, he was required to prepare a summary of the evidence, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order, for the consideration of the Commissioner of Immigration. Held: This was contrary to the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act to ameliorate the evils resulting from a combination of the prosecuting and adjudicating functions in administrative proceedings. Pp. 45-48. 5. Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which establishes certain formal requirements for every "adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for agency hearing," applies to deportation proceedings conducted by the Im

migration Service, although the Immigration Act contains no express requirement for hearings in deportation proceedings. Pp.

48-51.

(a) The limitation of § 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act to hearings "required by statute" does not exempt hearings held by compulsion but only those which administrative agencies may hold by regulation, rule, custom, or special dispensation. P. 50.

(b) They do not exempt hearings the requirement for which has been read into a statute by this Court in order to save the statute from constitutional invalidity. Pp. 50-51.

6. The exception in §7 (a) of the Administrative Procedure Act of proceedings before "officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute" does not exempt deportation hearings held before immigrant inspectors. Pp. 51-53.

(a) Nothing in the Immigration Act specifically provides that immigrant inspectors shall conduct deportation hearings or be designated to do so. Pp. 51-52.

84 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 174 F. 2d 158, reversed.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the District Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1001 et seq., does not apply to deportation hearings. 80 F. Supp. 235. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 174 F. 2d 158. This Court granted certiorari. 338 U. S. 812. Reversed, p. 53.

Irving Jaffe argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Jack Wasserman, Gaspare Cusumano and Thomas A. Farrell.

Robert W. Ginnane argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Campbell, Robert S. Erdahl, L. Paul Winings and Charles Gordon.

Wendell Berge, A. Alvis Layne, Jr. and John B. Gage filed a brief for Riss & Co., Inc., as amicus curiae, supporting petitioner.

33

Opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

This habeas corpus proceeding involves a single ultimate question-whether administrative hearings in deportation cases must conform to requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1001 et seq.

Wong Yang Sung, native and citizen of China, was arrested by immigration officials on a charge of being unlawfully in the United States through having overstayed shore leave as one of a shipping crew. A hearing was held before an immigrant inspector who recommended deportation. The Acting Commissioner approved; and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.

Wong Yang Sung then sought release from custody by habeas corpus proceedings in District Court for the District of Columbia, upon the sole ground that the administrative hearing was not conducted in conformity with $5 and 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act.1

1 Particularly invoked are § 5 (c), 60 Stat. 237, 240, 5 U. S. C. § 1004 (c), which provides in part:

"The same officers who preside at the reception of evidence pursuant to section 7 shall make the recommended decision or initial decision required by section 8 except where such officers become unavailable to the agency. Save to the extent required for the disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law, no such officer shall consult any person or party on any fact in issue unless upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate; nor shall such officer be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of any officer, employee, or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agency. No officer, employee, or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agency in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency review pursuant to section 8 except as witness or counsel in public proceedings. . . ."; and § 11, 60 Stat. at 244, 5 U. S. C. § 1010, which provides in part: "Subject to the civil-service

Opinion of the Court.

339 U.S.

The Government admitted noncompliance, but asserted that the Act did not apply. The court, after hearing, discharged the writ and remanded the prisoner to custody, holding the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to deportation hearings. 80 F. Supp. 235. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 419, 174 F. 2d 158. Prisoner's petition for certiorari was not opposed by the Government and, because the question presented has obvious importance in the administration of the immigration laws, we granted review. 338 U. S. 812.

I.

The Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, supra, is a new, basic and comprehensive regulation of procedures in many agencies, more than a few of which can advance arguments that its generalities should not or do not include them. Determination of questions of its coverage may well be approached through consideration of its purposes as disclosed by its background.

Multiplication of federal administrative agencies and expansion of their functions to include adjudications

and other laws to the extent not inconsistent with this Act, there shall be appointed by and for each agency as many qualified and competent examiners as may be necessary for proceedings pursuant to sections 7 and 8, who shall be assigned to cases in rotation so far as practicable and shall perform no duties inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as examiners. Examiners shall be removable by the agency in which they are employed only for good cause established and determined by the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) after opportunity for hearing and upon the record thereof. Examiners shall receive compensation prescribed by the Commission independently of agency recommendations or ratings and in accordance with the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, except that the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b) of section 7 of said Act, as amended, and the provisions of section 9 of said Act, as amended, shall not be applicable. . . ."

33

Opinion of the Court.

which have serious impact on private rights has been one of the dramatic legal developments of the past halfcentury. Partly from restriction by statute, partly from judicial self-restraint, and partly by necessity—from the nature of their multitudinous and semilegislative or executive tasks the decisions of administrative tribunals were accorded considerable finality, and especially with respect to fact finding. The conviction developed, particularly within the legal profession, that this power was not sufficiently safeguarded and sometimes was put to arbitrary and biased use.*

Concern over administrative impartiality and response to growing discontent was reflected in Congress as early as 1929, when Senator Norris introduced a bill to create

2 See e. g., Blachly and Oatman, Administrative Legislation and Adjudication 1 (1934); Landis, The Administrative Process 1 (1938); Pound, Administrative Law 27 (1942); Carrow, The Background of Administrative Law 1 (1948); The Federal Administrative Procedure Act and the Administrative Agencies 4 (N. Y. U. 1947); Final Report of Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure 7 (1941), contained in S. Doc. No. 8, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. (1941); Cushman, The Independent Regulatory Commissions, cc. II-V (1941); Frankfurter, The Task of Administrative Law, 75 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 614 (1927); materials cited in n. 4, infra.

3 See e. g., Dickinson, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law, passim (1927); Final Report of Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, supra, at 11-18, 75-92; and see materials cited in n. 4, infra.

4 E. g., Root, Public Service by the Bar, 41 A. B. A. Rep. 355, 368 (1916); Hughes, Some Aspects of the Development of American Law, 39 N. Y. B. A. Rep. 266, 269 (1916); Sutherland, Private Rights and Government Control, 42 A. B. A. Rep. 197, 205 (1917); Address of President Guthrie, 46 N. Y. B. A. Rep. 169, 186 (1923). After 1933, when the American Bar Association formed a Special Committee on Administrative Law, the Bar's concern can be traced in this Committee's reports. E. g., 58 A. B. A. Rep. 197, 407 (1933); 59 A. B. A. Rep. 539 (1934); 61 A. B. A. Rep. 720 (1936); 62 A. B. A. Rep. 789 (1937).