1 admission or rejection of foreign-born persons is entrusted to the Department of Commerce and Labor, and the courts cannot interfere unless a fair hearing is denied, in which case the matter may be reached by habeas corpus. A Chinaman was denied landing, and brought habeas corpus, alleging he was denied due process of law. The district court sustained its jurisdiction, and then went on to examine the merits, holding him to be a citizen. The government appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which held that he had been given a fair hearing, and that there was no jurisdiction. He then applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted, and the appellate court affirmed. It was held that although the question of jurisdiction was involved, the government properly took the whole case to the court of appeals.58 Summary of this section. When jurisdiction, the Constitution, or treaty law alone is decided, the Supreme Court has the sole power of review by direct appeal or error, taken within two years. If other questions are also decided along with the former, the case may go either to the Supreme Court or court of appeals, but not to both. 52. Indirect review of district court by Supreme Court; mandamus.-Except in the cases mentioned in the preceding section there is no power of direct review of the district court in the Supreme Court, that power being vested in the circuit court of appeals. There are certain unusual cases, however, where the Supreme Court may directly interfere 58 Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673, 32 Sup. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 607. 60 when no other mode of review exists, but only in cases directly reviewable by it.59 If a district judge refuses or vacates a temporary injunction suspending the enforcement of a state statute on constitutional grounds, there is no appeal given, and mandamus may be issued by the Supreme Court to compel the restoration of the injunction. An appeal is given in such cases only from the action of three judges sitting together. The circuit court of appeals may likewise issue mandamus to the district court to proceed with a case when it improperly rerefuses to do so, and when such a writ is in aid of the appellate court's jurisdiction.61 When there is another remedy by appeal or error the Supreme Court will not interfere. Although this has often been done, the rule is now settled in Ex parte Harding," reviewing the former decisions. In this case the circuit (now district) court denied motions to remand the suit to the state court where it was begun, and also permitted an amendment to defendant's petition for removal, so as to allege that the plaintiff was a citizen of Illinois instead of California, as first alleged. 62 Prohibition. The statute expressly authorizes the Supreme Court to prohibit the district court sitting in admiralty from proceeding further in cases before them, or from taking jurisdiction. The office of this writ is to prevent the unauthorized taking of 59 Ex parte Glaser, 198 U. S. 171, 25 Sup. Ct. 653, 49 L. Ed. 1000. 63 60 Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co., 220 U. S. 539, 31 Sup. Ct. 600, 55 L. Ed. 576. 61 This is explained in § 65. 62 219 U. S. 363, 31 Sup. Ct. 324, 55 L. Ed. 252, 37 L. R. A. 392. 63 Judicial Code, § 234. jurisdiction, or excess of jurisdiction.64 There is some question whether prohibition may be issued in non-admiralty cases, the statute seeming to limit the right to them.65 The question is a theoretical one, since mandamus to cease the exercise of jurisdiction would serve the same purpose. In any event prohibition will not issue when there is another remedy.66 Mandamus wholly ancillary. This writ from the Supreme Court can go only in cases where that court has either original or appellate jurisdiction by direct appeal or error from the court to which the mandamus is directed.67 Thus, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of suits between states, where a state is a party, against ambassadors, etc., and appellate jurisdiction in case of jurisdictional, constitutional, and treaty questions, as shown in this chapter. Certain special statutes also give direct appeals in interstate commerce cases, granting or refusing injunctions against state officers by three judges, and others. As seen later, appeals are given from courts of appeals, territorial courts, and District of Columbia courts. In all these cases the Supreme Court may issue mandamus when there is no other efficient remedy, but its power is limited to the class here mentioned. In other words, it cannot compel the district court to proceed or desist unless the case involves jurisdiction, the Constitution, a treaty, or is an admiralty case." 68 64 Ex parte Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 12 Sup. Ct. 453, 36 L. Ed. 232. 53. Direct review of final decrees in prize cases. -Prize is property captured at sea under the laws of war, and the only prize court in this country is the District Court of the United States.69 There is a right of direct appeal from the district court to the Supreme Court in such cases.70 The subject of prize properly belongs under the head of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction or war. When property is seized as prize the district court of that district into which the property is brought has jurisdiction to forfeit or release the vessel. In case the vessel is destroyed any district court in which the proceedings are first brought has jurisdiction."1 54. Review of decisions of the circuit court of appeals by writ of error or appeal.-In certain cases the judgment of the circuit court of appeals in cases brought before it by appeal or writ of error is final, subject only to the power of the Supreme Court to require the case to be certified to it for hearing and decision. In certain other cases the judgment of the court of appeals is not final, and in these an appeal or writ of error lies to the Supreme Court within one year after judgment, if the matter in dispute exceeds $1,000. Cases of the first class are those where the jurisdiction of the district court in the case under review depended entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit being aliens and citizens of the United States, or citizens of different states; also in all patent cases, copyright 69 Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S. 69, 2 Sup. Ct. 196, 27 L. Ed. 391. 70 Judicial Code, § 238; The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 20 Sup. Ct. 290, 44 L. Ed. 320. 71 Judicial Code, § 45. cases, internal revenue, tariff, and postal cases, criminal cases and admiralty cases. In all others, such as those arising under a law of the United States, or where the United States is a party to the suit, the judgment is not final, and the Supreme Court may directly review.72 Depending entirely, etc. This language in the statute cited means that in diverse citizenship cases, and between aliens and citizens, in order that the judgment shall be final, the jurisdiction of the court below must have depended alone upon such citizenship or status. If the jurisdiction of the district court was invoked both on the question of citizenship or status, and because the case arose under a law of the United States, then the judgment is not final, and the Supreme Court may review. 55. Review of decisions of the court of appeals by certiorari. In every case decided or in process of decision in the circuit court of appeals, the Supreme Court has power to require the former court to certify the case and all the papers and proceedings therein to the latter court for decision. This power is partly dependent upon special authority conferred by the Judicial Code, and also under the general power to issue all writs necessary to the exercise of the Supreme Court jurisdiction.73 The first section. cited provides for certiorari in any case, civil or criminal, in which the judgment of the court of appeals is made final. It is the practice of the Supreme Court to issue certiorari indiscriminately, whether 72 Judicial Code, §§ 128, 241; Court of Appeals Act of 1891, § 6; 26 Stats. at Large, p. 828. 73 Judicial Code, §§ 240, 262. |