Fong Yue Ting v. United States

Fong Yue Ting v. United States

Argued May 10, 1893
Decided May 15, 1893
Full case name Fong Yue Ting v. United States
Citations

149 U.S. 698 (more)

Prior history Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York
Court membership
Case opinions
Plurality Gray, joined by Blatchford, Brown, Harlan, Jackson, Shiras
Dissent Brewer, Field, Fuller
Laws applied
Geary Act

Fong Yue Ting v. United States 149 U.S. 698, decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws.[1][2][3][4][5] The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in the United States who were arrested and detained for not having certificates.[1][1][6] The Supreme Court decision (6 to 3) was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.[1][2]

Background

Backdrop of laws

In 1868, the United States and China entered into the Burlingame Treaty, establishing formal friendly relations between the two countries, and granting China most favored nation status. The treaty encouraged immigration from China, and granted some privileges to citizens of either country residing in the other, but withheld the privilege of naturalization for immigrants from China.

On November 17, 1880, the Burlingame Treaty was amended to suspend but not prohibit immigration from China. The amendment was called the Treaty Regulating Immigration from China, and historians refer to it as the Angell Treaty of 1880. The prefix stated: "The United States, because of the constantly increasing immigration of Chinese labourers to the territory of the United States and the embarrassments consequent upon such immigration now desires to negotiate a modification of the existing Treaties which shall not be in direct contravention to their spirit."[7]

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, forbidding (for ten years) the immigration of skilled and unskilled laborers from China to the United States. The rights of prior immigrants were not significantly amended. An 1884 Amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act required Chinese citizens to obtain re-entry permits if they wished to return after temporarily leaving the United States. On October 1, 1888, the United States government passed the Scott Act. Authored by William Lawrence Scott of Pennsylvania, the act was signed into law by United States President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888.[8][9] The act forbade re-entry of Chinese immigrants to the United States who would not otherwise be eligible to enter the United States if immigrating for the first time. This went against the privileges that the Burlingame Treaty gave Chinese immigrants to the United States.

The Geary Act

In 1892, as the ten-year period for the original Chinese Exclusion Act was scheduled to expire, the exclusion was extended for another 10 years with the Geary Act. The Geary Act, however, included a number of additional provisions affecting the lives of Chinese already living in the United States. One key set of provisions shifted the burden of proof for demonstrating the right to be in the United States on to the Chinese resident.

The chief enforcement mechanism for this change was "certificates of residence". Chinese already in the United States were required to possess "certificates of residence" that served as proof that they had entered the United States legally and had the right to remain in the country. The certificates of residence contained the name, age, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the applicant.

The following requirements for the certificate were relevant:

The following enforcement penalties gave teeth to the requirement for a certificate:

In particular, possession of the certificate itself became a requirement of law, regardless of whether the person had entered unlawfully.

Other general legislation surrounding immigration

In addition to the legislation focused specifically on the Chinese, there were some other pieces of legislation addressing migration at large:

Court precedents

At the time of the case, there were a few important Supreme Court precedents.

The case

Case details

The case in question involved petitions by three Chinese citizens residing in the United States, each of whom had not successfully obtained certificates of residence, though with slight differences:[1]

In all three cases, the petitioner (the Chinese citizen) alleged that his arrest and detention were without due process of law, and that Section 6 of the Geary Act, that had been used to justify the arrest and detention, was unconstitutional and void.[1]

Plurality opinion

The case was decided in favor of the United States Federal Government by a margin of 6 to 3, with the plurality opinion delivered by Justice Horace Gray.[1][2] The opinion discussed similarities and differences with past cases. Some of the cases discussed, and the key points of similarity and difference, are noted below:[1][3]

Brewer's dissent

Justice David J. Brewer dissented from the plurality opinion. He rested his opinion on three propositions:[1][3]

  1. The persons against whom the penalties of section 6 of the Geary Act are directed are persons lawfully residing within the United States.
  2. They are within the protection of the Constitution, and secured by its guarantees against oppression and wrong.
  3. Section 6 deprives them of liberty, and imposes punishment without due process of law, and in disregard of constitutional guaranties, especially those found in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th articles of the amendments.

Brewer made a key distinction between this case and previous cases such as Chae Chan Ping v. United States or Nishimura Ekiu v. United States: the United States Constitution applied only within the territory of the United States, and therefore its protections did not apply to aliens seeking admission, but they did apply to aliens who had been admitted. He also noted that the Geary Act was unprecedented in that it applied to Chinese who had already entered the United States and were present in the country for the long term, i.e., as resident aliens rather than temporary travelers. He argued that resident aliens deserved the full measure of constitutional protections.

Field's dissent

Stephen Johnson Field dissented from the plurality opinion, siding instead with the petitioners. Unlike the other judges, Field had historically placed more importance on protecting and upholding the rights of Chinese already in the United States, but was also more deferential to stronger restrictions on admission. In particular:

In his dissenting opinion in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, Field acknowledged the legitimacy of the United States federal government setting conditions on residence and determining whether people were unlawfully present in order to be able to deport them. However, he held deportation of resident aliens to a higher bar than refusing them entry. In particular, he made the following arguments:[1][2]

Fuller's dissent

The Court's Chief Justice, Melville Fuller, dissented from the plurality opinion. Fuller argued that the Geary Act was improper insofar as it directed the performance of a judicial function in a particular way, without all the procedural guarantees of a judicial trial. Fuller also expressed concern that the Geary Act contained within it "the germs of the assertion of an unlimited and arbitrary power, in general, incompatible with the immutable principles of justice, inconsistent with the nature of our Government, and in conflict with the written Constitution by which that Government was created and those principles secured."[1][3]

Relation with other court cases

Relation with other immigration cases decided at the time

Fong Yue Ting v. United States is listed as one of the five Chinese Exclusion Cases. The other cases in the list include:[6]

  1. Chew Heong v. United States (1884): This was the only one of the five cases decided against the government. This dealt with an Amendment to the Chinese Exclusion Act requiring re-entry certificates.
  2. Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), also sometimes referred to as the Chinese Exclusion Case, upheld the Scott Act forbidding the re-entry of Chinese laborers. This was cited as a key precedent for the decision in Fong Yue Ting v. United States.
  3. Fong Yue Ting v. United States (current page)
  4. Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1895): This upheld the decision of the United States Congress in the Geary Act of 1892 to exclude foreigners from entry without any habeas corpus relief.
  5. United States v. Ju Toy (1905): The Supreme Court further allowed Congress to deny the writ of habeas corpus even to persons claiming to be United States citizens.

Another related case decided around the same time was Nishimura Ekiu v. United States.

Value as a precedent for later doctrines in immigration law

In the case and most of the other Chinese Exclusion Cases, the Supreme Court repeatedly sided with the United States government and against aliens, offering the rationale that immigration policy and its enforcement were a matter for the legislative and executive branches. Some commentators argue that this case was an important precedent in establishing the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.[4][5][16] Others have disagreed about the significance of these cases for plenary power.[17] The defining case for the plenary power doctrine, Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) did not explicitly cite the case.

Among the early court decisions related to regulation of immigration and aliens, this was the first case to uphold broad federal powers to set conditions on residence and deport aliens who had been living lawfully in the United States.[1][5]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "Fong Yue Ting v. United States". Justia. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Fong Yue Ting v. United States". Immigration to the United States. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 "United States Supreme Court. FONG YUE TING v. U S, (1893) No. 108". FindLaw. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  4. 1 2 Feere, John (February 1, 2009). "Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  5. 1 2 3 Henthorne, Heather. "Resident Aliens and the First Amendment: The Need for Judicial Recognition of Full Free Speech and Association Rights". Catholic University Law Review. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  6. 1 2 Thomas Tandy Lewis. "Chinese Exclusion Cases". Immigration to the United States. Retrieved October 24, 2015.
  7. Scott, David. China and the International System, 1840-1949: Power, Presence, and Perceptions in a Century of Humiliation.
  8. "Scott Act (1888)". Harpweek. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  9. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  10. "Immigration Act of 1891". Immigration to the United States. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  11. "CHEW HEONG v. UNITED STATES.". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  12. 1 2 "The Chinese Exclusion Case. 130 U.S. 581 (1889)". Justia. Retrieved October 24, 2015.
  13. 1 2 "CHAE CHAN PING v. UNITED STATES". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved October 23, 2015.
  14. 1 2 "NISHIMURA EKIU v. UNITED STATES". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2016.
  15. McCloskey, American Conservatism, pp. 109-111.
  16. Chin, Gabriel. "Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting: The Origins of Plenary Power". Retrieved January 16, 2016.
  17. Maltz, Eric (April 2, 2012). "The Devil Made Me Do It: The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Myth of the Chinese Exclusion Case". Retrieved January 16, 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/16/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.