Kent v. Dulles
Kent v. Dulles is a significant Supreme Court case decided in 1958 that addressed the constitutional right to travel. The case arose when artist Rockwell Kent was denied a passport by the U.S. Department of State due to his alleged communist affiliations, in line with a policy that barred passport issuance to communists and those deemed security risks. Kent challenged this denial as unconstitutional, arguing that the government should not restrict citizens' rights based on their beliefs or political activities. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision led by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 did not grant the Secretary of State authority to deny passports on these grounds. Douglas emphasized that the right to travel is a constitutional right, and any restrictions must be explicitly authorized by law. This ruling led to changes in passport application processes, eliminating questions regarding Communist Party membership. The decision also set a precedent limiting Congress's power to restrict travel, which was further explored in subsequent cases. Kent v. Dulles represents a pivotal moment in the legal recognition of individual rights in the context of political beliefs.
Kent v. Dulles
Date: June 16, 1958
Citation: 357 U.S. 116
Issue: Right to travel
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel was part of the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and that Congress had not authorized the secretary of state to deny passports because of beliefs or political affiliations.
In 1948 the Department of State established a policy of not issuing passports to communists, communist sympathizers, or individuals considered security risks. When Rockwell Kent was denied a passport, he argued that the policy was unconstitutional. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Justice William O. Douglas held that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 did not authorize the secretary of state to withhold passports from citizens because of their beliefs or political activities. Douglas reasoned that the right to domestic and international travel was a constitutional right; therefore, the Court would have to assume that Congress would not have attempted to curtail the right without an explicit statute. In order to get Justice Felix Frankfurter to join the majority, Douglas did not consider the constitutional powers of Congress to restrict travel. As a result of the decision, nevertheless, passport application forms ceased to ask questions about Communist Party membership. Expanding on Kent, the Court limited the authority of Congress to restrict travel in Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964).
