Tutun v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1926 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsAppellate JurisdictionNaturalizationArticle IIIcase or controversynaturalizationfinal decisioncourt of appeals jurisdiction

Facts

Aliens filed petitions in federal district court seeking admission to citizenship in the United States, and the district court denied the petitions. The question was not the applicants' substantive eligibility for citizenship, but whether the denial orders could be reviewed on appeal by the circuit courts of appeals. The governing statutes conferred jurisdiction to naturalize upon district courts and separately gave circuit courts of appeals jurisdiction to review final decisions of district courts in all cases unless otherwise provided. The Government argued that naturalization proceedings were not "cases" within the appellate statute and that the Naturalization Act implicitly denied appellate review.

Issue

Whether a district court order denying an alien's petition for naturalization is a reviewable final decision in a "case" so that the circuit courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction to review it.

Rule

Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure, and that remedy is pursued, a case arises within the meaning of the Constitution, whether the subject is property or status. A petition for naturalization is such a judicial proceeding, and an order granting or denying it is a final decision reviewable by the circuit courts of appeals under the statute giving appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts in all cases, absent a contrary statutory exception.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Denver, Elena Markovic files a petition in federal district court seeking a congressionally created change in legal status. The statute requires an open-court hearing, sworn testimony, a recorded judgment, and permits the United States to appear and oppose the request. After denial, the government argues the matter was never an Article III case because it concerned status rather than property.

How should the appellate court rule on the government's argument?

Explanation. When law provides a remedy enforceable in court according to the regular course of legal procedure, and the remedy is pursued, a case arises within Article III whether the subject is property or status. The majority emphasized that the judicial character turns on the nature of the proceeding Congress created, not on whether the interest sought is a status.