Ceballos v. Shaughnessy

PETITIONER: Ceballos
RESPONDENT: Shaughnessy
LOCATION: Military Stockade

DOCKET NO.: 71
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1957)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 352 US 599 (1957)
ARGUED: Jan 16, 1957 / Jan 17, 1957
DECIDED: Mar 11, 1957

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Ceballos v. Shaughnessy

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 16, 1957 in Ceballos v. Shaughnessy

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 17, 1957 in Ceballos v. Shaughnessy

Earl Warren:

Number 71, Luis Alvara Ceballos, Petitioner, versus Edward J. Shaughnessy.

Mr. Kansas, you may continue.

Sidney Kansas:

Mr. Chief Justice and Associate Justice of the Court.

May I, this time, take one or two minutes to refer back to question number one, not for argument just --

Earl Warren:

Well, of course, of course, you may.

Sidney Kansas:

-- just to take the relief.

Earl Warren:

Yes.

Sidney Kansas:

And as much as the Government does not approve the decision of the lower court that the Attorney General as an indispensable party and thereby concedes that he is not indispensable in the present case.

And then as much as the District Court dismissed solely on the ground that the Attorney General was not made a party and which decision was approved by the court below.

I, therefore, ask for relief that the decision of the court below and the District Court to be reversed as to the indispensability of the Attorney General in order that the case maybe remanded to the District Court, in order to proceed that they hear the petition on the merits.

Now, I'll proceed to the second phase of it.

Now, there -- to me, that's -- it is a very simple matter.

There are two sections of the law required interpretation.

I am guided in my interpretation of the Selective Training and Service Act and Section 315 by the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and other federal courts.

Now, the point involved here is whether this alien forfeited his right to naturalization and whether he is no longer eligible for him to apply.

Why?

Because he has merely filed an application which was not accepted, quite the contrary, he was placed in Class I-A, ordered to appear for preinduction and physical examination.

And therefore, and so the Court of Appeals hold, he was not exempted.

Now, in the application for a certificate of naturalization, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will be granted.

It may be denied.

That's only the preliminary step.

There are some of the other things that he must comply with, so many other rules and regulations, such as showing that as a question of good moral character as the Court is well familiar with those requirements and it must reside a minimum period of time and that he is not connected with any subversive activities and many others.

Before, the naturalization service will be granted.

Likewise here, if it is found that he is eligible for naturalization that doesn't mean that he may apply for naturalization even in the near future.

But that eligibility gives him the privilege of applying for a suspension of his deportation.

Without that eligibility, he cannot even apply for suspension of his deportation in this case.

Now as I stated yesterday, this man is a highly intellectual man, well-educated, has a home of his own in (Inaudible) and he is married to a woman who was born in the United States and they have three small children all born in the United States.

Now, what we are trying --

Earl Warren:

Now, Mr. -- Mr. Kansas, you -- you were making an analogy between the naturalization statute and this particular one.

What does this statute say that he shall be ineligible for citizenship if he is granted immunity from the draft or does it say he shall be ineligible if he --