Fong Yue Ting v. United States
149 U.S. 698 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to exclude or expel aliens is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation, vested in the political departments of the government. Congress may therefore enact laws requiring the deportation of aliens without providing for a judicial trial to determine the facts upon which the deportation is based.
Facts:
- Fong Yue Ting, Wong Quan, and Lee Joe were all subjects of the Emperor of China and laborers by occupation who were legally residing in the United States prior to the passage of the Act of May 5, 1892.
- The Act required all Chinese laborers within the U.S. to apply for and obtain a certificate of residence within one year to prove their lawful right to remain.
- To obtain a certificate, the Act required the testimony of 'at least one credible white witness' to prove the laborer's residence at the time of the Act's passage.
- Fong Yue Ting and Wong Quan both failed and refused to apply for the required certificate of residence.
- Lee Joe applied for a certificate but was denied because he could only produce witnesses of Chinese descent to attest to his prior residence, not a 'white witness' as required by the statute.
- All three men were subsequently found within the United States without a certificate of residence after the one-year deadline.
- A U.S. marshal arrested all three men for the purpose of bringing them before a judge for deportation proceedings as mandated by the Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Fong Yue Ting, Wong Quan, and Lee Joe were arrested by a U.S. marshal in the Southern District of New York for failing to possess a certificate of residence.
- Each petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the constitutionality of their detention.
- In the cases of Wong Quan and Lee Joe, the Circuit Court, after a hearing, ordered them to be deported.
- In the case of Fong Yue Ting, the Circuit Court dismissed his writ of habeas corpus.
- The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the final orders of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Act of May 5, 1892, which requires Chinese laborers legally residing in the United States to obtain a certificate of residence and provides for their arrest and deportation if they fail to do so, violate the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Gray
No, the Act of May 5, 1892, is a constitutional exercise of congressional power. The power to exclude or expel aliens is an inherent attribute of national sovereignty that belongs to the political departments of the government, and its exercise is not subject to judicial review. The Constitution grants the national government entire control over international relations, which includes the power to determine which aliens may enter and which may be compelled to leave. The power to expel rests on the same foundation as the power to exclude, and both may be exercised entirely through executive officers or with such judicial involvement as Congress sees fit to provide. Deportation is not a punishment for a crime, but a civil method of enforcing immigration policy; therefore, constitutional provisions regarding criminal trials, such as the right to a jury, due process in a criminal context, and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment, do not apply. The requirement of a 'white witness' is a rule of evidence, which is within the power of the legislature to prescribe.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brewer
Yes, the Act violates the Constitution. The Chinese laborers affected by the Act are lawfully domiciled residents, not mere visitors, and as 'persons' within the jurisdiction of the United States, they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution's guarantees, particularly the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment. Deportation is a severe punishment, equivalent to banishment, that deprives an individual of liberty and property. The Act inflicts this punishment without a proper judicial trial, relying instead on a summary proceeding that is arbitrary and oppressive. The guarantees of the Constitution are not held by sufferance but by right, and they protect resident aliens from being punished and banished without the due process of law that is fundamental to the American legal system.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Field
Yes, the Act is unconstitutional. While the power to exclude foreigners from entering the country is an accepted incident of sovereignty, the power to deport friendly aliens who are lawfully domiciled within the country is a despotic power not granted by the Constitution. Aliens lawfully residing in the U.S. are entitled to the same constitutional guaranties for the protection of their persons and property as are secured to native-born citizens. The Act's provisions for arrest without a warrant and deportation for a mere failure to register constitute an unreasonable seizure and a cruel and unusual punishment. Such arbitrary power is contrary to the principles of a government of limited and delegated powers.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
Yes, the Act is unconstitutional. Lawfully domiciled Chinese laborers are 'persons' protected by the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to remain in the United States is a valuable liberty right that cannot be taken away by mere legislation. The Act's deportation provision is not a regulatory measure but a punishment designed to coerce compliance with registration. It is, in effect, a legislative sentence of banishment, which is void because it inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'plenary power' doctrine, which grants the political branches of the federal government (Congress and the Executive) nearly absolute authority over immigration matters. By defining deportation as a civil, administrative proceeding rather than a criminal punishment, the Court removed deportation from the scope of many key constitutional protections, such as the right to a jury trial. This ruling became a cornerstone of U.S. immigration law, creating a framework where the rights of non-citizens could be significantly curtailed and solidifying the principle that decisions about who may enter and remain in the country are political questions largely immune from judicial scrutiny.
Unlock the full brief for Fong Yue Ting v. United States