Argument of Amicus Curiae.

312 U.S.

Mr. Isidor Ostroff, with whom Mr. Herman Steerman was on the brief, for appellees.

The Act is discriminatory, unreasonable, inconsistent and capricious. The Act encroaches upon a field reserved to federal action. People v. Baum, 251 Mich. 187; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 39; Arrowsmith v. Voorhies, 55 F. 2d 310; Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275.

The Act denies equal protection of the laws to aliens in Pennsylvania.

By special leave of Court, Solicitor General Biddle, with whom Assistant Attorney General Shea and Messrs. Melvin H. Siegel, Richard H. Demuth, and Oscar H. Davis were on the brief, for the United States, as amicus curiae.

The federal Act of 1940 has superseded the Pennsylvania statute. The one is a comprehensive law on the subject of the registration and identification of aliens; the other, rather than complementing the federal law, covers almost the same ground.

The enactment by Congress of this comprehensive and integrated alien registration system precludes the exercise of any concurrent authority by the States.. People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 63; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 146-147; Easton v. Iowa, 188 U. S. 220, 231, 238; Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Washington, 270 U. S. 87, 99-101; Erie R. Co. v. New York, 233 U. S. 671; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 505-506; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Washington, 222 U. S. 370; New York Central R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147; Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 55; Lindgren v. United States, 281 U. S. 38, 45-46; New York Central & Hudson River R. v. Hudson County, 227 U. S. 248, 263-264; Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 236 U. S. 439; International

32

52

Argument of Amicus Curiae.

Shoe Co. v. Pinkus, 278 U. S. 261, 265-266; Gavit, The Commerce Clause, § 117. It is immaterial that the obligations of the alien under the two enactments are not necessarily incompatible. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U. S. 597, 604; New York Central & Hudson R. Co. v. Tonsellito, 244 U. S. 360; Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 246 U. S. 439, 446-448; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 250 U. S. 566, 569; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Porter, 273 U. S. 341, 346; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry., 292 U. S. 57, 60–61; cf., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 103. And it is likewise immaterial that the state law was enacted before the federal law. Southern Ry. Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, supra, 446, 447; People v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 107 U. S. 59, 63; Port Richmond Ferry Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 234 U. S. 317, 330; Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424.

The case of Gilbert v. Minnesota, 254 U. S. 325, can have no application to a situation like that here presented where enforcement of the federal statute requires continuous centralized administration and any independent and uncoördinated effort by state officials to aid in its enforcement could only result in confusion.

The Pennsylvania statute is also unenforceable because it is in conflict with the Congressional policy embodied in the federal law. Congress provided various safeguards to protect the civil liberties of aliens and to guard them against the vexation of intrusive police surveillance. The Pennsylvania statute contains no similar safeguards; to the contrary, it is fraught with the very dangers which Congress sought to prevent.

The Act provides that the registration and fingerprinting shall be done at the Post Office, thus avoiding any suggestion of police administration. There is no proviIsion for the issuance of an identification card and no

Argument of Amicus Curiae.

312 U.S.

requirement that the alien shall carry with him proof of registration. The Pennsylvania statute contains no similar protection of aliens.

Enforcement of the Congressional purpose to protect the civil liberties of aliens requires that the federal government retain the power to control and coördinate all activities with respect to registration and surveillance; this policy can not be enforced if the States are permitted to enact and administer independent registration systems, whether for purely local ends or for some purpose which the States share in common with the Nation.

If the States were permitted to administer independent statutes, the probable consequence would be to confuse the aliens as to their duties under each of the separate enactments, with their different provisions, different regulations, and different methods of administration.

Nothing in the debates in Congress or in the committee reports illumines the legislative intention concerning state action. But the President disclosed his understanding that the field had been completely occupied, in a statement issued contemporaneously with his signing of the bill, and the officials charged with administering the Act have taken the same position. A formal statement issued by the President upon completing his share in the legislative process is of importance in determining the legislative intention to preclude or permit state action. See Jones, Statutory Doubts and Legislative Intention, 40 Col. L. Rev. 957, 968, n. 40; cf., United States v. Dickerson, 310 U. S. 554.

There is no occasion to consider to what extent the States retain the power to enact census legislation for local purposes. Cf., City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet.

102.

Apart from the effect of the Alien Registration Act of 1940, the States may not require the registration of alien residents without the express consent of Congress.

The Pennsylvania Act is in conflict with § 16 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the validity of an Alien Registration Act adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.1 The Act, passed in 1939, requires every alien 18 years or over, with certain exceptions,2 to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any "other information and details" that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or any agent of the Department of Labor and Industry; and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for "the purpose of ready reference," and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of not

'Pa. Stats. Ann. (Purdon, Supp. 1940) tit. 35, §§ 1801-1806.

2 The exceptions are: aliens who are the "father or mother of a son or daughter who has served in the service of the United States during any war"; aliens who have resided in the United States continuously since December 31, 1908, without acquiring a criminal record; and aliens who have filed their application for citizenship. The latter exception is qualified by the proviso that aliens in that category must still register if they "shall not have become naturalized within a period of three years" after applying for citizenship. Since federal law requires five years residence before citizenship can be acquired (8 U.S. C. § 382), this exception means that aliens may be exempt under the Pennsylvania statute for the first three years after their arrival but subject to the statute for the two years immediately preceding their eligibility for citizenship.

more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

3

A three-judge District Court enjoined enforcement of the Act, holding that it denied aliens equal protection of the laws, and that it encroached upon legislative powers constitutionally vested in the federal government. It is that judgment we are here called upon to review. But in 1940, after the court had held the Pennsylvania Act invalid, Congress enacted a federal Alien Registration Act. We must therefore pass upon the state Act in the light of the Congressional Act."

The federal Act provides for a single registration of aliens 14 years of age and over; detailed information. specified by the Act, plus "such additional matters as may be prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Attorney General"; finger-printing of all registrants; and secrecy of the federal files, which can be "made available only to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Attorney General." No requirement that aliens carry a registration card to be exhibited to police or

30 F. Supp. 470. One alien and one naturalized citizen joined in proceedings filed against certain state officials to enjoin enforcement of the Act. The answer of the defendants admitted the material allegations of the petition and defended the Act on the ground that it was within the power of the state. Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The requested relief was denied as to the naturalized citizen but granted as to the alien.

The case is here on appeal under § 266 of the Judicial Code, as amended (28 U. S. C. § 380). We noted probable jurisdiction on March 25, 1940.

Act of June 28, 1940, c. 439, 54 Stat. 670.

"Cf. Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311 U. S. 538. And see United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110, and Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U. S. 23, 26-27.