Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Gonzales v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al., 1955 — 350 U.S. 920 · caselaw · US
General
Gonzales v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
350 U.S. 920100 L. Ed. 2d 806·Supreme Court of the United States·1955
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
December 12, 1955.
No. 111.
Gonzales v. Landon, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al.
A. L. Wirin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Fred Okrand. Oscar H. Davis argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Olney, Beatrice Rosenberg and J. F. Bishop. Briefs of amici curiae were filed by John W. Willis for Mendoza-Martinez, and by Osmond K. Fraenkel and Loren Miller for the American Civil Liberties Union.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Cer-tiorari, 349 U. S. 943, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argued December 7-8, 1955. Decided December 12, 1955.
Per Curiam:
The Court is of the view that the standard of proof required in denaturalization cases (see Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665) is applicable to expatriation cases arising under § 401 (j) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, as amended, and has not been satisfied in this case. Accordingly the judgment below is reversed without reaching the constitutional questions that have been presented.