The Chinese Exclusion Case (Chae Chan Ping v. United States)
130 U.S. 581 (1889)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal statute enacted by Congress that conflicts with a prior international treaty is controlling law, as the most recent expression of the sovereign will must prevail. The power to exclude foreign nationals is an incident of sovereignty belonging to the U.S. government that cannot be surrendered by treaty or contract.
Facts:
- Chae Chan Ping was a Chinese laborer who had resided in San Francisco, California, for approximately twelve years.
- On June 2, 1887, he departed the United States for a temporary visit to China.
- Before his departure, he obtained a certificate issued under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, as amended in 1884, which entitled him to return to the United States.
- While Chae Chan Ping was in China, Congress passed the Act of October 1, 1888, which declared that all such return certificates were void and prohibited Chinese laborers who had left the U.S. from returning.
- On October 8, 1888, Chae Chan Ping returned to the port of San Francisco aboard the steamship 'Belgic'.
- He presented his certificate to the collector of the port for re-entry into the United States.
- The collector refused him permission to land, citing the newly enacted Act of October 1, 1888.
Procedural Posture:
- The captain of the steamship 'Belgic' detained Chae Chan Ping on board after the collector of the port refused him entry.
- A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on Chae Chan Ping's behalf in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, alleging his detention was unlawful.
- The Circuit Court ruled that the Act of October 1, 1888 was valid and the detention was therefore lawful.
- The court denied the petition and ordered that Chae Chan Ping be returned to the ship's captain.
- Chae Chan Ping then appealed the Circuit Court's judgment 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:
Is a federal law that contravenes a prior treaty by excluding certain aliens from re-entering the country a valid exercise of Congressional power?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
Yes. A federal law that contravenes a prior treaty is a valid exercise of Congressional power because the last expression of sovereign will must control, and the power to exclude foreigners is an inherent incident of national sovereignty. The Constitution places treaties and federal statutes on equal footing as the 'supreme law of the land.' When a treaty and a statute conflict, the one enacted later in time is given effect by the courts. While breaking a treaty may have international political consequences, the judiciary is not empowered to question the wisdom or motives of Congress in doing so; that is a political question reserved for the political branches. Furthermore, the power to exclude aliens is an essential attribute of sovereignty that the government cannot surrender or bargain away. The certificate held by Chae Chan Ping was not a vested property right but a revocable license, subject to the government's plenary power over immigration.
Analysis:
This case established two foundational principles of U.S. law: the 'last-in-time' rule and the plenary power doctrine over immigration. The 'last-in-time' rule clarifies that a federal statute can abrogate the provisions of a self-executing treaty, solidifying congressional authority in foreign relations matters with domestic legal effect. More significantly, the case enshrined the plenary power doctrine, which holds that the political branches of government have nearly absolute authority over immigration, largely unreviewable by the courts. This doctrine has profoundly shaped U.S. immigration law, affording Congress immense deference in making rules for the admission, exclusion, and deportation of non-citizens, often insulating such laws from constitutional challenges that would succeed in other legal contexts.
