Legal Definitions - Kleindienst v. Mandel

Kleindienst v. Mandel is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly shaped the legal framework for how courts review the government's decisions regarding the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, particularly when U.S. citizens assert their First Amendment rights to hear or interact with those individuals.

The case involved a Belgian Marxist scholar who was invited by U.S. universities to speak at academic conferences. Despite previous entries, the U.S. Attorney General denied him a waiver to a statutory exclusion that barred individuals who promoted communism. The U.S. citizens who invited the scholar argued that this denial violated their First Amendment right to receive information and ideas.

The Supreme Court ruled that the power to exclude foreign nationals is a fundamental aspect of a sovereign nation's authority. Congress has the right to establish laws for exclusion and to delegate discretion to the Attorney General to waive those exclusions. The Court held that if the Attorney General's decision to deny a waiver is "facially legitimate" (meaning it appears valid on its face) and "bona fide" (made in good faith), courts will generally not examine the substance of that decision. Furthermore, courts will not balance the Attorney General's decision against the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who wish to invite the foreign national. This ruling established a very high bar for challenging such government decisions.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles of Kleindienst v. Mandel:

• Example 1: Denying Entry to a Controversial Scientist

  A prominent foreign geneticist, Dr. Anya Sharma, is invited by a leading U.S. university to present her groundbreaking research on gene editing. However, years ago, Dr. Sharma was briefly affiliated with a political organization in her home country that the U.S. government has since designated as supporting human rights abuses. This affiliation triggers a U.S. statutory exclusion for individuals associated with such groups. Despite her current work being purely scientific, the U.S. Attorney General denies her a waiver, citing the statutory exclusion and national security interests. U.S. academics and students argue that their First Amendment right to hear Dr. Sharma's ideas and engage with her research is being violated. Under the precedent of Kleindienst v. Mandel, if the Attorney General's decision to deny the waiver is "facially legitimate" (i.e., based on the statutory exclusion and appears to be made in good faith), a court would likely not second-guess the Attorney General's judgment or balance it against the First Amendment claims of the U.S. citizens. The court would defer to the government's immigration authority.

• Example 2: Excluding an Artist with a Past Conviction

  Mr. Jian Li, a celebrated foreign sculptor, is invited by a major U.S. museum for a retrospective exhibition and to give public lectures about his artistic process. Decades ago, Mr. Li was convicted of a minor, non-violent political protest offense in his authoritarian home country. This conviction falls under a broad U.S. statutory exclusion for individuals with certain types of "crimes involving moral turpitude." The Attorney General denies his visa waiver, stating that the statutory criteria for exclusion were met. U.S. art critics, the museum, and art enthusiasts argue that denying Mr. Li entry infringes on their First Amendment right to artistic expression and to receive information and inspiration from him. Following Kleindienst v. Mandel, as long as the Attorney General's denial is based on a valid statute and appears to be a good-faith application of that law, a court would likely not delve into the specifics of the Attorney General's reasoning or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of the U.S. citizens. The government's discretion in immigration matters would be upheld.