Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service…

But if the correct burden of proof was imposed at the trial, judicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether the evidence relied upon by the trier of fact was of sufficient quality and substantiality to support the rationality of the judgment. In other words, an appellate court in a criminal case ordinarily does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service…

The Court, by placing a higher standard of proof on the Government, in deportation cases, has usurped the legislative function of the Congress and has in one fell swoop repealed the long-established 'reasonable, substantial, and probative' burden of proof placed on the Government by specific Act of the Congress, and substituted its own 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing' standard.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service…

An alien, however, does not enjoy citizenship but only a conditional privilege extended to him by the Congress as a matter of grace. Both petitioners, the record shows, knew this, yet they remained in this country for years-46 in the case of Sherman and 10 in that of Woodby. Still, neither made any effort to obtain citizenship.
By treating these two cases as raising only a single issue the Court ignores some aspects of Woodby which greatly trouble me. Woodby sought review of the final deportation order against her more than six months after entry of that order.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature