applicant was participating in illegal conduct, trying to escape the toils of the law, promoting passport frauds, or otherwise engaging in conduct which would violate the laws of the United States. It considered wartime measures, citing Korematsu v. United States, for the proposition that the government could exclude citizens from their homes and restrict their freedom of movement only on a showing of "the gravest imminent danger to the public safety". It found that although there were scattered rulings of the State Department concerning Communists, they were not consistently of one pattern. The Court concluded that although the issuance of a passport carries some implication of intention to extend the bearer diplomatic protection, its crucial function is control over exit and that the right of exit is a personal right included within the word "liberty" as used in the Fifth Amendment. It found that when that power is delegated, the standards must be adequate to pass scrutiny by the accepted tests, citing Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, Cantwell v. Connecticut, and Niemotko v. Maryland, and that where activities or enjoyment natural and often necessary to the wellbeing of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, the Court will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them. Consequently, it found that § 1185 and § 211a did not delegate to the Secretary the kind of authority exercised in this case. Dissent The minority opinion was written by Justice Tom Clark with Justices Burton, Harlan and Whitaker concurring. The minority argued that historically Congress meant the Secretary to deny passports to those whose travel abroad would be contrary to American national security both in wartime and during peace, pointing out that passport restrictions on Communists were first implemented shortly after the 1917 Russian Revolution and continued periodically until 1952. It felt an even more serious error of the majority was its determination that the Secretary's wartime use of his discretion was wholly irrelevant in determining what discretionary practices were approved by Congress in enactment of § 215. It was not a case of judging what may be done in peace by what has been done in war. Were it a time of peace, there might very well have been no problem for the Court to decide, since petitioners then would not need a passport to leave the country. The wartime practice may be the only relevant one, for the