Per Curiam.
On February 1, 1942, pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, as amended, the Attorney. General of the United States interned petitioner, a German citizen residing in this country. On May 3, 1946, acting under the same statute, the Attorney General directed petitioner’s removal to Germany. Thereafter, petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and on October 9, 1950, after hearings, the District Court denied relief. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, 187 F. 2d 912, and petitioner applied to this Court for. a writ of certiorari on August 24, 1951.
While that petition was under consideration by the Court, a joint resolution of Congress, approved on October 19, 1951, terminated the state of war which had existed between the United States and Germany. 65 Stat. 451. We granted certiorari. 342 U. S. 864.(1951).
The statutory power óf the Attorney General to remove petitioner as an enemy alien ended when Congress terminated the war with Germany. Thus petitioner is no longer removable under the Alien Enemy Act.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its júdgment and direct petitioner’s release from custody.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or disposition of this case.
“Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any. foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.” 1 Stat. 577, as amended, 50 U. S. C. § 21.
The Attorney General acted under Presidential Proclamation No. 2526, 6 Fed. Reg. 6323, and Presidential Proclamation No. 2655, 10 Fed. Reg. 8947.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of. Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Germany by the joint resolution of Congress approved December 11, 1941, is hereby terminated and such termination shall take effect on the date of enactment of this resolution: Provided, however, That notwithstanding this resolution and any proclamation issued by the President pursuant thereto, any property or interest which prior to. January 1, 1947, was subject to vesting or seizure under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended, or which has heretofore been vested or. seized under that Act, including accruals to or proceeds of any such property or interest, shall continue to be subject to the provisions oí that Act in the same manner and to the same- extent as if this resolution had not been adopted and such proclamation had not been issued.. Nothing herein and nothing in such proclamation shall alter the status, as it existed immediately prior hereto, under that Act, of Germany, or of any person .with respect to any such property or interest.” H. J. Res. 289, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 65 Stat. 451.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.