Page:Kerry v. Din.pdf/19

2 , concurring in judgment his visa was denied under the immigration statute’s terrorism bar, §1182(a)(3)(B). See ante, at 2.

The conclusion that Din received all the process to which she was entitled finds its most substantial instruction in the Court’s decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753 (1972). There, college professors—all of them citizens—had invited Dr. Ernest Mandel, a self-described "'revolutionary Marxist,'" to speak at a conference at Stanford University. Id., at 756. Yet when Mandel applied for a temporary nonimmigrant visa to enter the country, he was denied. At the time, the immigration laws deemed aliens “who advocate[d] the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of World communism" ineligible for visas. §1182(a)(28)(D) (1964 ed.). Aliens ineligible under this provision did have one opportunity for recourse: The Attorney General was given discretion to waive the prohibition and grant individual exceptions, allowing the alien to obtain a temporary visa. §1182(d)(3). For Mandel, however, the Attorney General, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), declined to grant a waiver. In a letter regarding this decision, the INS explained Mandel had exceeded the scope and terms of temporary visas on past trips to the United States, which the agency deemed a "'flagrant abuse of the opportunities afforded him to express his views in this country.'" 408 U. S., at 759.

The professors who had invited Mandel to speak challenged the INS' decision, asserting a First Amendment right to "'hear his views and engage him in a free and open academic exchange.'" Id., at 760. They claimed the Attorney General infringed this right when he refused to grant Mandel relief. See ibid. The Court declined to balance the First Amendment interest of the professors against "Congress' 'plenary