*1 KLAPPROTT v. UNITED STATES. Argued
No. 42. January October 1948. Decided 1949. *2 argued petitioner. Ennis the cause for
P. Bateman W. and Morton With him the brief were Stone Clifton Singer. for the States. argued L. the cause United
Robert Stern Perlman, him Solicitor General With on the brief were Rosenberg. Erdahl and Beatrice Robert S. judgment of the Black announced the Justice
Mb. following opinion the which Court and delivered Mr. Douglas joins. Justice power of fed- questions concerning
This case raises the depriv- judgments eral courts to enter default district citizenship without hear- ing persons naturalized of their judgments and under ings evidence, to set aside default the default years some circumstances four or more after judgments were entered. In petitioner was born 1933 after Germany.
The a New a hearing Jersey state court entered citizenship. him to admitting United States Petitioner and renouncing allegiance Germany then took an oath promising to faith and allegiance bear true the United him a States, whereupon granted the court certificate of naturalization. See 8 U. S. C. 735. § years Attorney, acting
Nine later the United States pursuant complaint to 8 S. C. U. filed Jersey United States District Court of New to set aside petitioner’s the state court’s and cancel cer- of complaint alleged gen- tificate naturalization. erally petitioner’s etc., false, oath allegiance, that at time taking petitioner it well knew that principles he was attached to the States Constitution, and that he had not in fact intended there- after to allegiance bear true States or re- the United nounce and allegiance fidelity discontinue his and to Ger- In than many. particular complaint charged no more subsequent loy- to 1935 had evidenced his alty Germany disloyalty country and his to this in 1942 had writings speeches; that he was and been before that time leader and member of the German principles organizations, American Bund and other the Constitution alleged which were to be inimical to people; of its happiness the United States propagated encouraged that these organizations were who believed by enemies the United States Adolph require- Hitler. For ideology enunciated Rule allegations particularized, ment that of fraud be see (b)9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner, May 15, 1942, with notice though served *3 complaint sixty days failed to answer the within as re- July quired by (b). 7,1942, 8 U. S. C. 738 But on before was expiration sixty days, petitioner of the arrested in a jail charges and confined New York on criminal brought by 17, 1942, On July the United States. of Jersey
Federal District Court of New on motion Attorney, States a judgment United entered petitioner in the set against proceedings, denaturalization him admitting aside the 1933 state court citizenship, and cancelled his certificate naturalization. years
More than four after the default was against him, petitioner rendered was and while still government prisoner, filed the District Court veri- petition judg- that praying fied the court set aside ment. The States did not of the facts deny United alleged petition. the verified District nec- Court, The essarily accepting allegations true, the undenied as held “willful guilty had been and inex- neglect” accordingly petition cusable dismissed the “because of laches.” 6 F. R. D. 450. the defendant’s Appeals, petitioner’s The United Court of rejecting States affirmed, judge several contentions, dissenting. one 166 2d F. 273. true accept must also we considering case
In are facts These petitioner. allegations undenied legal considering some importance great chronologically facts alleged The raised. contentions follows: are as arranged of court. naturalized order Petitioner 16.
Nov. citizen American married Petitioner Nov. 17. marriage. by that one child and now has left ill. illness seriously Petitioner was Spring. weakened poor and so financially
him to work. that he was unable complaint Attorney filed the United States May 12. Court in the States District petitioner’s citizen- Jersey New to cancel ship. had no petitioner. He
May Complaint 15. served draft money lawyer. drew a to hire He complaint of an and wrote to the answer a letter to the American Civil Liberties him asking they represent Union without fee.
July 7. Arrested charging under federal indictment
petitioner and others with conspiracy to violate the Selective Act. Service Taken before United States Commissioner at Newark, Jersey; New later carried to New York Federal Bureau Investigation agents, put there prison, unable $25,000 make bond of under which he was held. His letter to Civil Liberties Union taken from him by agents FBI eight days expiration of before time to answer cancellation of citizenship charge New Jersey. agents re- letter, tained the never mailing it.
July 17. Judgment by default entered by Jersey New
court citizenship cancellation case. At time, petitioner was in a New York jail awaiting trial under the selective serv- ice conspiracy case. No evidence was offered prove the Government its charges in the complaint for cancellation of citizenship. The Government’s case consisted of no than a more verification of this complaint an FBI agent on information belief, based agent’s having read FBI concerning files petitioner.
July 7, petitioner While jail, lawyer was still 1942, date appointed by the New York District of arrest, Court to defend in the selective to June service criminal case. request At his 1943. New York lawyer promised him help
also Jersey in the New pro- cancellation ceedings, but lawyer neglected to do so. Petitioner was convicted and sen- tenced to penitentiary.
194S June. Petitioner begin elected to service of the
New York sentence pending appeal, was carried to and confined federal institu- tion in Michigan where he remained until January 30, 1944.
606
19U prison from federal Petitioner transferred Jan. 30. of Co- Michigan jail in the District twenty-nine lumbia tried with other to be persons of sedition. charge 1945 New petitioner’s York This Court reversed 11 June States, Keegan v. 325
conviction, United held in 478, U. S. but continued to be until No- jail the District of Columbia 22, vember 1946. 22,
Nov, case dismissed. of Columbia sedition District al., v. et States McWilliams C. 2d 695. The App. 259, 163 D. F. eight tried for previously
case had been a mistrial months, completion but before was declared because the death after dismissal presiding judge. Shortly pris petitioner, of the sedition case still was carried oner the United deportation Ellis Island for on account of the cancellation of his un der the New Jersey Dec. 9. This Court denied certiorari in three court unsuccessfully prosecuted by
actions Citizens Protective on behalf of League 159 individuals including' petitioner. (The organiza League non-profit tion equal rights “to insure for all and to safeguard rights the constitutional all persons.” League Citizens Protective Clark, App. S. 81 U. D. C. 290, 291; denied,
F. 2d cert. 329 U. S. complaint 787. The prayed that At- *6 torney enjoined General be deport- from the 159 ing individuals. Petitioner had been deported ordered 27, 1946, March while he was the District of Columbia jail charged sedition.) with days Three after this Court’s denial of cer- Dec. 12. tiorari, the action brought by the petitioner, Citizens Protective League, still a government prisoner Island, at Ellis stated the substance of the foregoing facts petition under oath and a was filed on his behalf Jersey the New District Court to vacate the default judgment grant him a trial on the merits. Petitioner’s verified motion alleged also that the Gov- charges against ernment’s him in the New Jersey court strongly were untrue and he asserted his loyalty the United States. judge District petitioner’s dismissed the mo- Feb. 7. tion holding petitioner that had been n guilty of arranging in not laches while
in prison for defense of the cancellation of citizenship charge.
Thus, petitioner this has now been continuously held in prison by the Government for six years. and one-half During period that he served years one one-half a penitentiary punishment under conviction which this Court held was improper. He was also held Dis- trict of Columbia jail years two and ten months under an indictment that was later dismissed. It is clear there- fore, that for four and one-half petitioner years this was prison held in on charges that the Government was unable to sustain. No other conclusion except can drawn be that Whether imprisonment wrongful. long
this must therefore should set aside by be Gov- allegations undenied on the be decided agents, wrong- of FBI through the action ernment, largely District York, Michigan, in New fully petitioner held Government, largely while the same prisons, of Columbia FBI caused agents, same or other acting through the petitioner’s citizenship a district court to revoke appearance had failed to make petitioner ground Jersey courts, although New and defend lawyer. funds to hire a was at the time without (b) the Federal Rules of Rule 60 First. Amended *7 March 1948.1 That became effective Civil Procedure 1 (b) provides: 60 Amended Rule just, may upon the court relieve and such terms as are “On motion order, judgment, or party legal representative from a final a or his (1) mistake, inadvertence, following sur- proceeding for the reasons: neglect; (2) newly evidence which prise, or discovered excusable in time to move for a diligence not have been discovered due could (3) (whether (b); heretofore denom- fraud new trial under Rule misrepresentation, extrinsic), or other misconduct or inated intrinsic (5) (4) void; judgment judgment is the party; an adverse discharged, judgment upon satisfied, released, prior or or a has been vacated, no or or it is has been reversed otherwise which it is based applica- judgment prospective longer equitable should have operation tion; (6) any justifying relief from the other reason or reasonable motion shall be made within a year (2), (3) one time, (1), not more than for reasons A or taken. judgment, order, proceeding was entered after the or (b) finality of a does affect motion under this subdivision not limit judgment suspend operation. This rule does or its party a independent action to relieve power entertain an of a court to grant defend- order, proceeding, or relief to a judgment, or from a provided 57 of the in Section actually personally notified as ant not judgment 28, 118, a Code, C., or to set aside Title Judicial vobis, nobis, audita coram upon the court. Writs coram for fraud review, bill of nature of a querela, and bills and bills review obtaining any from a relief abolished, procedure for are and the prescribed in rules judgment these shall be motion independent action.”
was after the District Court denied the motion to set aside this default judgment after affirmance of the District Court’s action by the Court of Appeals. For these reasons the Government contends that amended (b) Rule 60 should not applied be In here. re- some spects, the amended grants rule power courts broader to set judgments aside than did the old rule. Petitioner should be afforded the benefit of the more liberal (b). amended 60 For (b) Rule 86 made amended 60 (b) applicable to “further proceedings in actions then pending” unless it “would work injustice” so apply It the rule. seems inconceivable one could think it injustice would work any to the Government to measure petitioner’s rights by this amended rule in this case all where he asks try is a chance to the denaturalization proceeding its merits. Amended Rule (b) should applied. be
Second. (b) Amended Rule authorizes court set “a aside void judgment” regard without to the limita- tion of a year applicable to motions set on some aside grounds. other It is contended that this is void because rendered by District Court without hear- ing any evidence. The if hearing is void evidence a legal prerequisite to rendition of a *8 valid judgment in denaturalization proceedings. While 8 S. U. C. under which § this denaturalization complaint filed, plainly was authorizes courts to revoke of naturalized citizens and after notice hearing, it explicit contains no authorization for rendition judgments. of default au- Congressional intention thorize court in action a be might the absence of citizen implied, however, provision by pub- from the for notice (b). lication in 738 possible § Aside from constitutional questions, it may therefore be assumed that the section authorizes rendition of a in denaturalization a defendant’s absence. necessarily But it does not fol- proof without may a court also render
low that complaint. in a made denaturalization charges of the and companion 738§ is strong And there indication did not to authorize courts intend Congress sections citizenship for automatically deprive people of their appear. failure to for felony applicants it a §C. 746 makes relating federal laws or others violate
naturalization guilty found Had been to naturalization. could have been charged, here making the false oath sec- for a this punished felony of and under convicted in- after only been tion. But he could have convicted a have been trial at he would jury dictment and which would A conviction present represented by counsel. doubt, a a guilt reasonable required proof beyond have testimony given presence witnesses had opportunity have to cross- who would accused a In against him. the event of such examine witnesses (e) procedural safeguards, 738 required § under conviction natu- citizenship and to revoke cancel authorizes courts gap ralization There is broad between certificates. accomplished thus the one § 738 denaturalization here, proceeding. ordered this For court representative absent, no or other defendant counsel offered, only present, of his was no evidence was and the complaint containing allegations, basis for action was questionable procedural from a stand- substantive agent acquired verified an FBI point, on information FBI hearsay him from at statements in an looking protection Congress (e) dossier. afforded 738§ per- emphasizes the unfairness would result from with- mitting proceedings denaturalizations other 738§ out evidence all. at look
When we to federal statutes other than 738 we express authority no command and no for courts to find *9 enter judgments by denaturalization default without proof support facts No such author- ity or command is in Rule 55 contained of the Federal of Civil Rules which Procedure rule relates to default judgments. (e) Rule 55 all expressly judgments bars against the United States but it proof, without cannot be inferred from this proof required is never as a prerequisite to judgments against default all defendants other than (b) (2) the United States. For Rule 55 ex- pressly provides representation parties for defaulting (b) (2) some instances. Rule also directs that specified certain courts, instances before entering judg- ments after appearance, default of shall make investi- gations, hearings, grant jury conduct and even trials. In particularized addition to instances, (b) (2) these Rule 55 provides also hearings for court before default necessary where “it is any ... to establish the truth of averment or to an investigation evidence make any other matter.” appears
Thus it that statutes and rules have largely judicial left for determination type of cases in which proof hearings precede should judgments. In this situation it is the final responsibility of this Court controlling formulate the rules for hearings proof. See McNabb United 341. For following peculiarly reasons it seems appropriate that person’s citizenship should be revoked only after evi- person dence has established that has guilty been prohibited justifying conduct revocation. Denaturalization consequences may grave be more than consequences that flow from conviction for crimes. Per- sons with charged crime United States courts cannot be convicted on default judgments unsupported by proof. Even decrees of divorce or default judgments money damages where there is uncertainty amount *10 The rea- proof. supported by actual ordinarily be
must money involving in cases proof requirement for sons which involve force to cases greater apply with much deportation. citizenship subsequent forfeiture to plain fact recognized long This has Court citizenship is extraor- of his American deprive person a such a consequences The dinarily penalty. severe upon his children. heavily may even rest deprivation the denaturalization a result of C. 719. As § 8 U. S. deport deported. ordered “To petitioner has been here, obviously deprives citizen, to be a who so claims one both in loss of may It result liberty .... also him of living.” makes life worth all that life; or of property White, 284. Because Ho v. 259 Ng Fung within the have not fallen proceedings denaturalization satisfactory hardly a is crimes technical classification while proof without allowing denaturalization reason for a short money a mere fine or proof support to requiring imprisonment. in- grave consequences
Furthermore, because have held that proceedings we cident to denaturalization in prove charges its a on the Government burden rests clear, unequivocal convincing evidence cases such Schneiderman not the issue doubt. which does leave is 118, 158. This burden 320 U. S. in criminal required with that identical substantially a doubt. The same proof beyond reasonable cases— nature require proof of this factors that caused us to judgments hear- a prerequisite denaturalization equal apply at least with ings present, with the defendant stripped of his proceedings in which citizen is force ad- Assuming that no citizenship rights his absence. it our procedural safeguards required, is ditional are de- proceedings opinion that courts should until prive person of his the Government satisfy proof charges first of its sufficient offers defendant imposed it, even cases where burden in appearance. made default has But if of denaturalization
Third. even this rea- void, compelling there remain other not treated as is petitioner of (b) relieving for under amended sons setting (b) provides for aside its effect. Amended reasons for of five specified one operation justifying reason relief from “any other specified first of reasons judgment.” the five “mistake, inadvertence, neglect.” or excusable surprise, *11 requires Rule To of this reason the advantage take after year ask more the to relief “not than one litigant It or taken.” order, proceeding or was entered judgment, one-year limitation bars is contended that the the premise petition judgment the the to set aside on And neglect.” but showed, most, nothing at “excusable if no more course, of the limitation would control one-year In that “neglect” petition. than disclosed was not avail himself of broad petitioner could event the (b). petitioner’s But “any other clause reason” which situation can- allegations up extraordinary set “neglect” his fairly not or be classified as mere logically petition set out in the reveal The undenied facts part. than failure to defend the denaturalization far more inadvertence, dis- indifference, to careless charges due time, and before, For at regard consequences. entered, petitioner was judgment the default was after jail York, and the Michigan, held New District adversary in the States, his Columbia the United to hire a funds proceedings. denaturalization Without appointed defended counsel lawyer, petitioner was petitioner’s prayer Thus set aside the criminal cases. did allegations the default not rest on mere neglect.” foregoing allegations “excusable and oth- support argument petition petitioner’s ers in the tend to deprived opportunity that he was reasonable by of- instigated charges to the criminal defense make supplied which agency States of the very ficers which his upon information the secondhand basis of him in absence. The away from his was taken in his to act neglected that he had petition his weakened from jail was, as he defense, but that own proceed- lawyer in the denaturalization without a illness, occupied one, fully disturbed and funds to hire ings or criminal gravest himself protect against in efforts to New himself no more able to defend charges, he was had he never have been Jersey court than would Under such circumstances charges. notice of the received prayer setting aside the petitioner’s only neglect, under the excusable be considered should not (b), of 60 the “other reason” clause but also under apply. provision limitation does not one-year which peti- question to the whether Fourth. Thus we come “justifying relief allegations show facts tioner’s undenied judgment.” It is contended operation from the interpreted reason” clause should be so that the “other sufficient to except under circumstances deny relief law writs of under common have authorized relief *12 querela, and audita and that the facts shown coram nobis under common justified would not have relief these here thing wrong with this contention proceedings. law One have to what circum- agreed that few courts ever as is To justify would relief under these old remedies. stances accept this contention would therefore introduce need- (b) in administration of 60 and would less confusion the bound- circumscribe it within needless and uncertain also on face (b) strongly Furthermore 60 indicates its aries. in longer that courts no to be hemmed the uncer- are law remedial tain boundaries of these and other common In simple English, language tools. of the “other clause, particularly for all the five except reason” reasons
615 adequate to them power in enable specified, vests courts is judgments appropriate vacate whenever action to such accomplish justice. to allegations already set show The undenied out
Fifth. citizenship by his Gov stripped that a citizen was of his ernment, evidence, hearing, without the benefit holding his was then counsel, at a time when Government him jail opportunity in with no reasonable for the citizen citizenship. Further right to defend his to effectively proceeding complaint in the denaturalization more, the proceeding is strongly indicates that the Government here did the criminal cases inadequate facts, just it if had For the Government brought against petitioner. it prove particular a trial no more been able on than it alleged complaint, it its denaturalization facts held proof if its could have been sufficient doubtful petitioner’s holdings under our revoke States, Baumgartner Schneider United 665, v. S. U. States, Knauer v. 118, man United S. U. see (b) Rule petitioner asked And all has Rules Civil Procedure. default be set aside so that for judgment is that Certainly the may defend on merits. first time he default alleged justify setting facts aside the undenied ato purpose. Petitioner is entitled makes He has had it. Government fair trial. with hearings Fair are accord no claim that has. concepts justice, language and the elemental enough author (b) clause of 60 is broad “other reason” grant aside ize the Court set hearing. a fair Black, Mr. Jus- Douglas, Justice Mr. Mr. Justice Rutledge Murphy, Justice Justice Mr. tice Mr. dismissing Court erred that the District agree Burton *13 judgment, default and petition to set aside the Appeals the Court in affirming erred the District Court judgments accordingly and are reversed the cause is remanded to the District Court with instruc by tions to set aside default and grant petitioner a on hearing the merits of the issues raised complaint.* the denaturalization
It is so ordered. Burton, Mr. Justice agreeing while with Mr. Justice Reed that a may denaturalization be entered by default without a showing further than was made case, that, special this believes under the circumstances here shown behalf petitioner, of this the judgment be should set aside and the should be granted hearing on the merits issues raised complaint. denaturalization He joins therefore the judgment of the Court special as limited to the facts of this and expressing opinion case without upon any issues not now before this Court. Rutledge, Mr. Justice whom Mr. with Justice Mur-
phy agrees, concurring the result. To treat a pro- denaturalization proceeding, whether cedurally otherwise, or as if it were than nothing more damages suit for for breach of contract one to recover pay ignores, overtime in my view, every consideration of justice of reality concerning the substance of suit and what at stake. away
To take man’s deprives of a him right precious no less than liberty, life or indeed of one today comprehends which rights those all almost lay upon others.1 To punishment the citizen the of exile judgment modified, 336 *[This U. S. 942.] 1 Ng Fung White, Ho v. Cf. 276, Schneiderman 284; v. States, United 118, concurring opinion 165; 320 U. S. Knauer dissenting opinion 328 U. S. 675.
617 thus treason, penalty is a murder, or even committing doubtfully law and at most but far unknown to our Const., Amend. VIII. power. within U. S. Congress’ carried forward suit, Yet the device or label a civil procedure pro- safeguards the of criminal with none of and comprehensive Rights, Bill of this most vided away it can be taken right all, held, basic so has been penalty of may wake follow the most cruel and its banishment. a natural-born citizen procedures strip
No such could I penalty. him birthright lay open of his to such Iwhy think the Con- have stated heretofore the reasons deprivation or not countenance either that stitution does punishment for naturalized ensuing liability to such States, 118, citizens. Schneiderman United v. 320 U. S. States, opinion 165; Knauer United concurring v. opinion 675. 654, dissenting naturalized rights Those views of the substantive But the Schneiderman prevailed have not here. citizens States, Baumgartner v. United S. 322 U. decision which proof burden of for denaturalization 665, required a for convic- demanded approximates burden effect a reasonable cases, namely, proof beyond tion criminal for denaturaliza- charges alleged as cause doubt of the recognition This in itself and to that extent tion.2 upon suits procedures, apply civil such as ordinary liabilities, do purely enforce other civil contracts consequences. denaturalization and all its not suffice for 125, 136, 153, States, 118, v. United 320 U. S. See Schneiderman 154, 158, page we said: conclude that the Govern 159. At “We ‘clear, unequivocal, proving its burden of ment has not carried doubt,’ convincing’ ‘the issue evidence which does not leave concurring illegally.” his obtained 674, upon went States, opinion in v. United 328 U. S. Knauer concerning “beyond doubt” all reasonable the basis of satisfaction denaturalization. proof grounds asserted for in the cases to decide necessary than this it was not More in view of the substan- required, No should cited. less be causes, with criminal proceedings tial kinship label. Cf. Knauer whatever their technical form or 675, 678. dissenting opinion 328 U. S. whether, issue however, presents squarely This case, proof, beyond any question weight of burden or *15 the away to take ordinary procedures civil can suffice open perma- him to lay naturalized status and citizen’s following for consequences all fateful nent exile with the native-born his as in this case family, himself and often in- aspect is question its narrower Americans. can be inflicted without consequences deed whether those any proof whatever. system not be convicted or
Under our could pos- fraud, overceiling sales, unlawfully for mail or fined a taken sessing gasoline coupons upon ration default, much circumstances this record by less under the responsible to default. Yet discloses have been the him a right protections his basic to all afforded the as him, from stripped citizen the Constitution can be urged, proof, so it is now without iota of without his appearance presence in court, without counsel em- ployed or with assigned right, to defend that and indeed no real opportunity part prepare on his and make such far goes beyond defense. The case thus the Court’s States, ruling And, my in Knauer v. supra. opinion, brings whether, beyond it to clearer focus the matter of satisfying proof required by the burden Baumgartner cases, Schneiderman and Knauer case rightly permitted through pro- denaturalization the civil pursued.3 cedures there dissenting, majority In the view of as well that of the those case, fully
in the Knauer the Government had satisfied the burden proof required by Baumgartner decisions. Schneiderman and See 328 U. S. 675. we are to continue rulings, the Court’s
If, deference one secure country, in this of citizens have two classes moment subject every at the other in their status class, other applicable to by proceedings to its loss States, concurring opin supra, v. United cf. Schneiderman dissenting supra, 167; Knauer v. United ion at ordi idea that I assent to the at cannot opinion afford standard in civil causes procedure rules of nary naturalized given to safeguard status sufficient naturalized defeasible for If is to be citizens. or other voluntary renunciation than citizens, other citizens,4 the defeasance native-born applicable to causes protec no lesser be surrounded it seems to me should conviction against all citizens securing than those tions it, the denatu- given of the name Regardless for crime. all the it has proceeding when is successful ralization conviction, penal or criminal and effects of consequences deportation greater liability to except ensuing that the inflicted for crime. generally penalty than is I do not assent light, this proceeding Regarding *16 can be of denaturalization principle in that the procedure rules of civil that the taken default or apply permit to such in civil causes applicable ordinary result. I for these conclusions which have stated grounds The to reverse the casting my would lead to vote logically proceedings. the to dismiss judgment with instructions not receive the does however, disposition that Since, who, I on other join with those majority, of concurrence and reversed should be think that grounds, of dispose in trial, voting so remanded for new I the Court’s Accordingly concur cause. that rules of civil assumption may that, upon
I add dissenting opinion v. United Knauer 328 U. S. See 675, 676.
procedure may in denaturalization I apply proceedings, substantially expressed am with accord the views Mr. Justice Black. Reed, The Justice with whom Chief Justice
Mr. join, and Mr. dissenting. Justice Jackson In May, 1942, the United States began proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Klapprott Jersey, against New under 338 of the § Nation- ality 1137, 1158, 738,1 Act of 54 Stat. U. S. C. naturalization, of in 1933, cancel his certificate issued the ground allegiance that he had taken a false oath of procure complaint alleged the certificate. The petitioner at the time he took the oath knew that he was principles not attached to the Constitution of the and did United States not intend to renounce his alle- giance Reich; to the German “is and has notoriously openly been one of the leaders chief and active members of the German-American Bund” and other organizations sympathetic Reich; to the German
“1 (a) duty attorneys It shall be United States district respective districts, upon showing good therefor, for the affidavit cause any (a) proceedings specified to institute court in subsection judicial section 701 of this title in district which the naturalized may bringing suit, purpose citizen reside at the time of for the revoking setting admitting person aside the order such to citizen ship canceling ground the certificate of naturalization on ground fraud or on the that such order and certificate naturaliza illegally procured. tion were
“(b) party granted alleged to whom was the naturalization fraudulently or.illegally procured shall, pro- have been such ceedings (a) section, sixty days’ per- under of this subsection have sonal notice in which to petition make answer to the of the *17 States; person and if such naturalized be from absent the United judicial States or from person district which such last had his residence, given by publication such notice shall be in the manner provided for by publication upon the service of summons absentees by the place brought.” laws of the State or the where such suit is indicating statements had made “numerous and that he Reich and his to the German loyalty and allegiance his and institutions disrespect principles for the and disregard America.” of the United States of May summons on personally served with
Petitioner was evidence, of 1942. the introduction Without July him on against default was entered judgment sixty days within the when he failed to answer 17, 1942, note 1. 338, supra, allowed later, Klapp- years and January, 1947,
In four one-half had entered court which petitioned the same district rott to show for an order denaturalization judgment of In not be vacated. why judgment that should cause after admit- petition, stated, he appended to his affidavit it was complaint, receipt of the summons ting intimated him enter a defense impossible for steps to have unable to take that he was allegation There is no prior to 1947. vacated any period for entry ignorant was Rules (d) of the Federal (a) Rules 5 and 77 See time. in the affi- The reasons contained Procedure. of Civil be sum- can this statement support general davit serious ill- as a result of Petitioner, marized as follows: very around get “unable to ness, poor health no he had was served. Since time summons well” at the a letter to he drafted lawyer, retain a money with which to request- York of New Liberties Union the American Civil days seven before July 7, 1942, assistance. On ing legal he was arrested expired, filing appearance for time United States on an indictment federal authorities York, New District of Southern Court District the Selective conspiracy to violate him with a charging authorities, by these was taken Act. The letter Service The court never mailed. Klapprott knew, and, so far as New York in the defend appointed lawyer him the denatu- informed Petitioner case. conspiracy *18 622 promised to lawyer to which proceeding,
ralization to be allowing judgment neglected, attend, but which lengthy trial of the default. Because entered conspiracy with the high bail connection exceedingly steps to have unable to take was still petitioner charge, found guilty He was vacated. Correctional to the Federal and committed conspiracy2 January 30, On Michigan. Milan, Institution at 3 Case” “Sedition to another indictment —the pursuant District of for the District Court United States of Colum- to the District transferred Columbia —he was the trial of this custody throughout He remained in bia. when the indictment 21, 1946, case until November was imme- released but Petitioner was then dismissed. pur- for the custody at Ellis Island diately remanded attempt this began there he deportation. From pose of vacated. judgment of denaturalization to have the allegations affidavit denied Petitioner in his he had and asserted that complaint government’s original for cancellation defense to the action legal good naturalization. his certificate of judg- from the default If is entitled to relief provi- under one or more of the qualify must ment, he Federal Rules of Civil Proce- (b) 60 sions of Rule affidavit petition I think that his or the do not dure.4 2 Keegan v. United. 325 subsequently reversed Conviction S. 478. U. F. 2d McWilliams, App. D. C. 82 U. S. United States 695. (b): Rule 60 may just, relieve upon are the court motion and such terms as
“On order, judgment, or party legal representative from a final or his inadvertence, (1) mistake, sur- following proceeding for the reasons: (2) newly which prise, neglect; discovered evidence or excusable for a diligence in time to move due could not have been discovered (3) (whether heretofore denom- (b); new trial under Rule 59 fraud misconduct extrinsic), misrepresentation, inated or other intrinsic support thereof meets requirements of that Rule vacating I First. The Court assumes, must, think it Nationality 338 of the Act authorizes judgments *19 provisions denaturalization. So much is clear from the (b) publication in of by that section for notice and in (c) for the denaturalization who of one has left the United permanent States to establish a residence The elsewhere. action authorized the section is civil.5 general The places rule in civil actions is that notice party responsibility appear whom it is directed the and de- consequences. fend or face the Rule 55 of Federal provides Rules Civil Procedure for judgments default (4) party; judgment (5) void; judgment adverse an is satisfied, released, discharged, prior judgment upon has been or or a vacated, is which it based has been reversed or otherwise or it is no longer equitable judgment prospective applica- that the should have (6) tion; any justifying operation or other reason relief from the The motion shall be made within reasonable a time, (1), (3) (2), year and for reasons and not more than one judgment, order, proceeding after the or A was entered or taken. (b) finality motion under this subdivision does not of a affect judgment suspend operation. or its This rule does not limit the power of independent party a court to entertain an action to relieve a judgment, order, from proceeding, grant a or or to relief to a defend- actually personally provided ant not notified as in 57 of the Section Code, C., 28, 118, judgment Judicial U. Title S. or to set aside a § upon for nobis, vobis, fraud the court. Writs of coram audita coram querela, and review, bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of abolished, procedure are obtaining any and the from relief a judgment prescribed shall be motion these rules or independent action.” subsequent section, (a) (1) A 54 Stat. 8 U. S. C. §746 (d), specifically providing penalties and fine for the criminal imprisonment this, and for the indi utterance of a false oath such as proceedings cates an intention criminal. that under 338 are not States, 654, 671; Cf. Knauer United v. United v. 328 U. S. Luria States, 9, 27-28; States, 309; v. 2d U. S. Sourino United 86 F. Wezel, Supp. 16, 17. United States v. 49 F. party
in civil where the against actions whom relief is sought plead. fails to The instances in (b) enumerated (2) (e) rule, judg- and of that as those where ment entered, shall not be do not include this case. Second,
The under suggests caption however, Court presentation that is a prerequisite evidence to the entry of judgment, such that a default subject entered without evidence is void and therefore (4) to vacation without a definite time limit under (b). points Rule 60 It out that Schneiderman held convincing” that “clear necessary support evidence is of denatu- holding case, ralization. The must be however, e., i. setting, viewed its a contested case. The does case support proposition evidence, clear otherwise, convincing required an uncontested denaturalization proceeding. general rule civil *20 necessary. deporta- actions is that none though Even tion is a most serious deportee, disaster to the it is founded here on uncontested allegations adequate of facts that must be Although taken as true. the committee which formulated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure twice made a hearing requirement on evidence a entry judgment, (b) (2) Rule 55 and (e), no such requirement expressed was Except for cases of this sort. for cases of sort specified (b) (2) (e), those where the of damages question, amount is in I think meaning of the Rule is that a default is the equivalent of an admission allegations are well which pleaded. support
The Court seeks the fact that other sections of the Nationality Act, (e) 8 U. S. C. and §§ provide for denaturalization when the alien has been procuring convicted crime of his certificate by knowingly naturalization false statements under oath. protections The safeguard which the alien in such prosecution criminal sought are to be extended himto proceedings civil under very 738. To me the exist- parallel ence the Act two methods of denaturaliza- protections tion indicate that the inherent in the criminal proceeding are not apply pro- intended to to the civil ceeding such as we have here. expression
Since no of Congress found, can be either in the Federal Rules or in the Nationality Act, to the effect necessary that evidence is to validate civil default I denaturalization, do not think it is the supply function of this Court to one.
The suggestion caption of the Court in Fifth government’s complaint does not state a cause of action, seems Certainly government unwarranted. is not required plead all its complaint evidence. Since the alleged specified fraud and in paragraph 6 thereof the constituting circumstances set out in the fraud, first v. I Knauer paragraph dissent, of this think suggestion S. belies the that the com- U. plaint is defective.
Thus I suggestion dissent from the that the against Klapprott can be vacated as void under Rule (b) (4).
Second. Court holds that is entitled to relief (6), (b). under the “other reason” clause of Rule 60 This follows, said, allegations it is from his that he custody subjected prose- held in to several criminal cutions I it, allega- the United States. As see such nothing single ground tions add to the on which relief *21 e., i. based, “mistake, inadvertence, could have been sur- prise, (b) (1). I do not neglect.” or excusable Rule 60 say period mean an arrest and a of subsequent to that imprisonment depriving extent which interfered to the of opportunity him the to or the get legal assistance of In ability to would entitle him to relief. litigate affidavit, of out in petitioner’s view the facts set own subjected imprisonment how however, it is difficult to see it furnishes him him in this case or how injustice to petitioner an for relief. Thus ground with additional to him or allege requested does not he the return the that of the Civil Liberties mailing his letter to American impris- He in fact could that not, not, Union. does claim On deprived right him the to counsel. the onment he made available in contrary admits that counsel was appearance pro- enter the denaturalization time to do negligently but failed to so. ceeding, that counsel pur- litigate period to this ability during Petitioner’s is illustrated the portedly drastic confinement fact affidavit, began in his that as stated a its unsuccessful termination suit continued until enjoin deporting Justice from him. Department of showing mistake, amount a alleged
Since facts inadvertence, neglect only, and since defi- or excusable nite time is on relief based year imposed limit of one contemplate on these the Rule be said to grounds, cannot remedy limit the same without time based on facts. (6) is Otherwise the word “other” clause rendered meaningless.6 woefully
The Court mis- intimates If this it is meant that government. treated from “mis- he is entitled to relief based on party,” (b) (3), of an Rule the answer conduct adverse year is that relief this limited to one from ground suggestion analysis, however, On way contrary in a petitioner’s have been carried on trials concepts in the United States justice as understood with incompatible pattern and in a manner Ameri- simple Klapp- in view justice can falls flat facts. open had The courts have hearings. rott counsel impede complicity conspiracy him of cleared 240, 244. Wallace 142 F. 2d Cf. *22 raising army of an prosecution have dismissed a for conspiracy. seditious To be cleared on charges these can upon have no effect propriety of his deportation violation of our naturalization laws. imposed
The limitations (b) Rule 60 expressions are of the policy of finally concluding litigation within a rea- sonable time. Such termination of lawsuits is essential to the efficient justice. administration of I would not frustrate policy by allowing litigants upset judg- ments of long standing allegations on such Klapprott’s. Frankfurter,
Mr. Justice
dissenting.
American citizenship
acquired by
other than when
birth
judicial
rests on a
Tutun
judgment
v.
of naturalization.
States,
United
270 U. S.
Congress
explicitly
568.
has
procedures
defined the
for annulling
such a
States,
Johannessen v. United
225 Luria 227;
But in contention necessarily not lost a default one does by judgment, be a assimilating of natural- embrace the other extreme This ization to other civil judgment judgment Court held that because a naturalization has of those in- involves interests a different order from of proceedings, in civil the annulment such volved other qualitatively is dif- judgment guided a considerations ordinary of govern ferent from those that annulment States, v. United judgments. Schneiderman 320 U. S. 118; Baumgartner 665. The for proceeding that set a can- considerations contested apart celling judgment a naturalization from other suits to judg- a are a default judgment, equally annul relevant to public sure, ment To be causing such cancellation. fair litigation in to and in not allow- putting interest end people sleep rightful its claim ing rights to their has deprivation citizenship. in in proceedings resulting even of citizenship But ramifying significance because has such dependent upon the fate an individual and of those admin- safeguarded interest be in the him, public if justice neglected istration will not be courts look summarily and deal when asked set sharply more less citizenship aside for cancellation of setting than is aside other default required them judgments. light general
It is in considerations that these I dispose present governed would of the case. I deem it (b) liberalizing amendment Rule 60 though Federal of Civil Procedure even that be- Rules after came the decision below. It is course effective procedural changes and fast are hard rule that prospectively applied pending litigation to be to a at any stage may possible at which it be to do so without working injustice. But since is at stake appeal equity and this is in effect an to be with dealt adjudication, time of as of the it seems more consonant with equitable judge considerations to the case on the basis of now in force, though the Rule even the lower court did not opportunity apply have the it.
If paid pro- had no attention to the ceeding brought citizenship, would, to revoke his my opinion, ground opening up have no the default simply during years question because all the he was press incarcerated. Men can their claims from prison walls, proved perhaps behind the fact that *24 a third sought of the cases for which review is in this ' penitentiaries. Klapprott Court come from But not proceeding citizenship. indifferent to the to set aside his He took active defense measures of which were aborted fault of through sure, no his own. To be did not he up efforts, follow in motion saying these but what he is criminal made after his cases were ended is substance preoccupied defending against that he was so with himself charges (the the dire of sedition for which conviction Keegan this Court set aside in v. United 325 478) deportation, and the threat of that the New Jersey proceeding naturally dropped cancellation from appropriate his mind after he had taken what thought steps protection. for his The de- Government effect murred this action, contention and the District Court’s Appeals, practically affirmed the Court of ruled as a Klapprott, true, matter of law that claim of if even significant affords no relief. It is to me that one of the affirming judges Appeals of the Court of decided the two largely reading (b) case on a close of the old Rule 60 laches, that the other rested his case on while this Court fails support to draw on laches for the of its conclusion. from provides grounds five for relief (b)
Rule 60 now “any ground, judgments and a sixth catch-all operation from the justifying other reason relief five only of the first reasons judgment.” one may explicitly narrated, conduct, as Klapprott’s which relief neglect,” of “excusable plausibly assigned be after a default year which must be obtained within a from fairly I if to be But think that the inferences by Klapprott were drawn from the circumstances narrated true, they take his case outside of found be would “neglect” in the because “neglect,” characterization subject idea of negligence of its matter carries the context dif- merely non-action, not and would constitute a operation from reason relief “justifying ferent we stake, a for is at judgment.” When claim complaint liberality is the ought to with read superstitious Baron Parke’s “almost rev- antithesis of special pleading.” for dark erence technicalities Judgment or “Rule 60. Relief From Order. Newly “(b) Inadvertence; Neglect; Mistakes; Excusable upon terms Etc. On motion and such Evidence; Fraud, Discovered legal representative just, may party or his as are the court relieve judgment, order, proceeding following a final reasons: from neglect; (2) newly (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable diligence by due could have been discovered evidence which (b) ; new in time to move for a trial under Rule discovered *25 (whether extrinsic), (3) or denominated intrinsic fraud heretofore (4) party; the misrepresentation, or other misconduct an adverse released, (5) satisfied, or judgment void; judgment has is the been discharged, prior upon it is based has been or which longer equitable the vacated, no or or it is reversed otherwise (6) any rea- prospective application; or other have should mo- justifying operation from the relief son (2), (1), time, for reasons be within a tion shall made reasonable judgment, order, pro- (3) or year not than one after the more ceeding was entered taken. . . .” Biog. See Nat. Therefore, fairly Diet. 226. what emanates complaint from such a should be treated as though formally alleged. And so I deny would not Klapprott an opportunity, even at this late stage, establish as a psychological fact what his allegations imply, namely that the harassing criminal proceedings against him had preoccupied so his mind that he was guilty not negligence failing to do more than he initially did in seeking to defend the denaturalization proceeding. But I would not regard such a psychological issue established as a fact merely because the Government in effect demurred complaint. to his Since the nature of the ultimate issue—forfeiture of citizenship not —is governed by be ordinary rules of default judgments, neither should the claim of a state mind be taken as proved simply because the Government, feeling itself justified in on a resting purely legal did defense, deny the existence of that state of mind.
To rule out opportunity to establish psycho- logical implications of complaint would be to make a, its denial rule of It law. would not take much of the trial court’s time to allow Klapprott if establish them he can. The spent time would be well even if he should fail so; to do it would be more consonant with safeguards properly which this Court has thrown around the with- drawal of citizenship than is the summary disposition I that was made. But would require Klapprott satisfy the trial that what judge impliedly alleges true, it that I part is here with majority. company