As a juvenile, he was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court unless that court, after "full investigation," should waive jurisdiction over him and remit him for trial to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
He was denied a passport because he was allegedly a Communist and was alleged to have "a consistent and prolonged adherence to the Communist Party line. District Court for declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment against him.
On appeal, Kent's case was heard with that of Dr. Walter Briehl, a psychiatrist. When Briehl applied for a passport, the Director of the Passport Office asked him to supply an affidavit with respect to his membership in the Communist Party.
Briehl, like Kent, refused.
|Juvenile court - Wikipedia||Trial as an adult All states have laws that allow, and at times require, young offenders to be prosecuted or sentenced as adults for more serious offenses, Without regard to their age. United Statesthe United States Supreme Court held that a juvenile must be afforded due process rights, specifically that a waiver of jurisdiction from a juvenile court to a district court must be voluntary and knowing.|
His application for a passport was tentatively disapproved. Briehl filed his complaint in the District Court, which held that his case was indistinguishable from Kent's and dismissed it. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard the two cases en banc and affirmed the District Court by a divided vote.
Decision of the Supreme Court[ edit ] The cases were heard on writ of certiorari. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Dulles was the first case in which the U. Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
It did not decide the extent to which this liberty can be curtailed. The Court was first concerned with the extent, if any, to which Congress had authorized its curtailment by the U. The Court found that the Secretary of State exceeded his authority by refusing to issue passports to Communists.
It did not rule on the constitutionality of the law because the only law which Congress had passed expressly curtailing the movement of Communists across U.
Six years later, the Court in Aptheker v.
Secretary of State found that the law violated First Amendment principles and left unsettled the extent to which this liberty to travel can be curtailed. Majority opinion[ edit ] In a majority opinion written by Justice William O. Douglasthe Court reviewed the history of the issuance and regulation of US passports, noting that the passport is "a document which, from its nature and object, is addressed to foreign powers; purporting only to be a request that the bearer of it may pass safely and freely, and is to be considered rather in the character of a political document by which the bearer is recognized in foreign countries as an American citizen" citing Urtetiqui v.
D'Arbel and that except in wartime "for most of our history, a passport was not a condition to entry or exit" concluding that the issuance of passports is "a discretionary act" on the part of the Secretary of State.
The Court then surveyed Angevin law under the Magna Cartaciting Article 42 in support of the right to travel as a "liberty" right.See Black v. United States, supra; Watkins v.
United States, caninariojana.comD.C. , F.2d (). The statutory scheme makes this plain. The Juvenile Court is vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction" of the child. This jurisdiction confers special rights and immunities. U.S.
Supreme Court Kent v. United States, U.S. () Kent v. United States. No. Argued January 19, Decided March 21, U.S. In Kent v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the due process rights of juvenile offenders.
In this lesson, you will be introduced to the facts of Kent v. explains what you've just read in the news, providing historical, legal, and standards-based context to our nation's ongoing efforts to provide a meaningful right to counsel.
Kent v. Dulles, U.S. (), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as .
The sufficiency of the evidence to support Kent's conviction is reviewed de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury's verdict. United States v. Guerra, F.3d , (11th Cir); United States v.