Holmgren v. United States

217 U.S. 509 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1910

Facts

Gustav Holmgren swore falsely during the naturalization application of Frank Werta in the Superior Court of San Francisco, a California state court. Holmgren stated under oath that he had been acquainted with Werta in the United States for five years immediately preceding the application. In truth, Werta had not resided continuously in the U.S. for five years, and Holmgren had known him for less than four years. Holmgren knew his statement was false at the time he made it.

Procedural history

Gustav Holmgren was convicted and sentenced in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California for false swearing. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. The case then came before the Supreme Court.

Issue

Can a conviction be obtained in a federal court for false swearing in naturalization proceedings that occurred in a state court, under § 5395 of the United States Revised Statutes?

Holding

Yes, a conviction can be obtained in a federal court for false swearing in naturalization proceedings conducted in a state court. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Rule

Congress has the constitutional power to establish uniform rules of naturalization and to authorize state courts to conduct naturalization proceedings. When an oath is taken in such a proceeding under federal naturalization laws, Congress may constitutionally provide for the punishment of false swearing, whether the oath is taken before a federal or state court or officer. Section 5395 of the Revised Statutes, which punishes false swearing in naturalization proceedings, applies to oaths taken in state courts because its language is broad enough to cover any proceeding "under or by virtue of any law relating to the naturalization of aliens." The court interprets the Revised Statutes as codifying existing law without intending to change the policy that federal courts have jurisdiction over such offenses committed in state courts, absent a clear expression of such purpose.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.