●● The Study Thread ●●

[Irako of the Desert]

Chae Chan Ping v. United States of America

Major Rulings: Congress did have the right to modify or abrogate treaties as it saw fit and the Supreme Court did not have the right to pass judgement on these modifications.

Political Rationale: It's Congress's job to make or break treaties with foreign nations and regulate immigration. Supreme Court's jurisdiction does not extend to deciding whether Congress's decisions regarding foreign relations are constitutional or not.

Historical Context: The Gold Rush had begun and Chinese immigrants came to the West Coast to work as laborers. After a while, there seemed to the white people to be too many Chinese people competing for jobs, and they raised enough of a stink about it for Congress to pass the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Chinese laborers who had entered the United States before the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act could remain, but if they left the United States, they would not be allowed to return unless they possessed a particular certificate that had been issued for a short amount of time. After a flurry of cases where many immigrants claimed to have been out of the United States when these certificates were issued and therefore could not have obtained one, an amendment was passed that said such certificates were no longer allowed to be used to gain re-entry into the United States. Chae Chan Ping challenged this alteration, saying it modified a treaty with China and such an alteration was unconstitutional.

Related Court Cases: The justice's opinion mentions Chew Heong v. United States  

[Irako of the Desert]

Fong Yue Ting v. United States

Major Rulings: Congress has almost complete control over how it regulates immigration because it is their constitutional right. This includes alien registration and deportation procedures and requirements. The dissent held that Fong Yue Ting's right to due process of law was violated, and that Congress did not have the power to deny that right from non-citizens.

Political Rationale: Every sovereign nation has the right to determine who it allows in or keeps out.

Historical Context: Fong Yue Ting was ineligible for U.S. citizenship because he was born in China and was considered an "alien ineligible for citizenship" (which meant anyone who wasn't white or black couldn't become a citizen of the United States, a.k.a. Asians). However, he had immigrated to the United States before the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and had obtained a certificate that allowed him to continued to reside in the U.S. that was required by the Geary Act. He got arrested and the judge immediately ordered him to be deported without a hearing. Fong Yue Ting tried to prove that he was allowed to live in the United States by reason of owning the certificate, but the Geary Act also required that he have credible white witness to testify on his behalf. Fong Yue Ting only knew Chinese people in the U.S., so could not provide the white witness. He challenged the requirement, saying that it was unconstitutional to base a requirement to avoid deportation on race.

Related Court Cases: Chae Chan Ping v. United States, Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, Yick Wo v. Hopkins  

[Irako of the Desert]

Ozawa v. United States

Major Rulings: Only Caucasians are white and since Ozawa was not white, he was not eligible for citizenship

Racial Rationale: Only whites and blacks were eligible for naturalization.

Historical Context: Ozawa claimed that since his skin was white, he was therefore a white person and was eligible for citizenship. He spoke English, sent his children to American schools, attended American churches, and valued things that white Americans valued.

Related Cases: Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind  

[Irako of the Desert]

Oyama v. California

Major Rulings: The California land laws were abrogating Fred Oyama's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Political Rational: The Supreme Court didn't want to reverse their previous upholdings of the constitutionality of land laws, so only ruled on Fred Oyama's rights under the Constitution as a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Historical Context: California passed land laws preventing Asians from owning land in reaction to white farmers fearing that Japanese farmers. Fred Oyama was the son of a Japanese immigrant born in the U.S., so was therefore a U.S. citizen. His father bought land in his name, then petitioned to be appointed his guardian. The California land law had a specific provision

Related Cases:Sei Fuji v. California  

[Irako of the Desert]

Roldan v. L.A. County

Major rulings: California's anti-miscegenation laws did not prevent the marriage of a Filipino and a white person.

Racial Rational: Malays are not Mongolians, despite precedents saying so.

Historical Context: California had anti-miscegenation laws preventing white people and "negroes, mulattos, or Mongolians." A Filipino American man named Salvador Roldan and his fiance, a British woman named Marjorie Rogers applied for a marriage license in L.A. County and were denied on the grounds that "Malays" were "Mongolians" and therefore a Filipino man couldn't marry a white person.

Related Cases:  

[Irako of the Desert]

Sei Fuji v. California

Major Rulings: California's Alien Land laws are a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Political Rationale: Previous Supreme Court decisions did not put the question about race-based laws to rest, but seemed to invite closer scrutiny and testing.

Historical Context:

Related Cases: Terrace v. Thompson, Shelley v. Kraemer, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Oyama v. California, Korematsu v. United States, Perez v. Sharp, Porterfield v. Webb  

[Irako of the Desert]

Terrace v. Thompson

Major Rulings: The Washington alien land laws were held to not be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Political Rationale: The States have the right to regulate whether aliens can hold land within their own borders.

Historical Context:

Related Cases: Buchanan v. Warley, Holden v. Hardy, Truax v. Raich, Meyer v. Nebraska, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Barbier v. Connolly, Hauenstein v. Lynham, Blythe v. Hinckley  

[Irako of the Desert]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Major Rulings: Natural-born citizens of Chinese descent could not have the Chinese Exclusion Acts applied to them as they were not Chinese laborer immigrants.

Political Rationale:

Historical Context: Wong Kim Ark left the U.S. to visit China twice. The first time, he was allowed back into the U.S. on the basis of his U.S. Citizenship. The second time, he was denied entry.

Related Cases:  

[Irako of the Desert]

United States v. Thind

Major Rulings: A native Hindu is not eligible for citizenship because they are not white.

Racial Rationale: A Caucasian, previously held to be mostly people from a certain region that included Northern India, does not include those whose skin is not white. According to the common understanding of Caucasian in the United States as opposed to the scientific understanding previously used, a high caste Indian would not be considered to be included.

Historical Context:

Related Cases: Ozawa v. United States  

[Irako of the Desert]

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Major Rulings: A law that was race neutral on its face, but was administered arbitrarily regardless of the petitioner's qualifications was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Political Rationale:

Historical Context:

Related Cases: Chy Lung v. Freeman, Soon Hing v. Crowley, Henderson v. Mayor of New York, Neal v. Delaware, Barbier v. Connolly