Wong Wing v. United States
163 U.S. 228 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While Congress has broad authority to exclude or deport aliens through summary administrative proceedings, it cannot subject aliens to infamous punishment, such as imprisonment at hard labor, for their unlawful presence in the country without affording them the criminal procedure protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including indictment by a grand jury and a trial by jury.
Facts:
- Wong Wing and three other persons of Chinese descent were residents within the United States.
- In July 1892, they were found in Detroit, Michigan.
- The Act of May 5, 1892, mandated that any Chinese person found to be unlawfully in the United States could be arrested and brought before a judge or commissioner.
- Section 4 of this Act provided that if found unlawfully present, such persons "shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed from the United States."
- The statute provided for this determination and sentencing to be made in a summary proceeding by a justice, judge, or commissioner, not through a conventional criminal trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Wong Wing and three other Chinese persons were arrested in Detroit under a warrant issued by a U.S. Circuit Court commissioner.
- Following a summary hearing, the commissioner found them to be unlawfully in the United States.
- The commissioner ordered them to be imprisoned at hard labor for 60 days, to be followed by deportation to China.
- The petitioners filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing their imprisonment was unlawful.
- The Circuit Court discharged the writ and remanded the petitioners to custody to serve their sentences.
- The petitioners 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:
Does a federal statute that authorizes the imprisonment of an alien at hard labor, following a summary determination by an executive officer and without a jury trial, violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Shiras
Yes, the statute violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. While Congress has plenary power to expel aliens from the country through executive action, it cannot subject them to infamous punishment without a judicial trial. The court distinguished between the civil, administrative process of deportation and criminal punishment. Citing prior cases like Fong Yue Ting v. United States, the court affirmed that deportation is not a punishment for a crime and can be handled by executive officers. However, the court held that imprisonment at hard labor is an infamous punishment that triggers the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. These constitutional guarantees, which require a presentment or indictment of a grand jury and a trial by jury for infamous crimes, apply to all 'persons' within the jurisdiction of the United States, including aliens. Therefore, a statute that imposes such punishment without a judicial trial is unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice Field
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The author concurs with the majority's conclusion that sentencing a person to imprisonment at hard labor without a judicial trial violates the Constitution. He strongly affirms that imprisonment at hard labor is an infamous punishment that can only be imposed after a conviction in accordance with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. He emphasizes that the term 'person' in the Constitution is universal and protects resident aliens just as it does citizens. His partial dissent is directed at the 'harsh and illegal assertions' made by government counsel suggesting that aliens within U.S. jurisdiction could be denied the full protection of the Constitution, not at the majority's holding.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial limit on Congress's plenary power over immigration by drawing a sharp distinction between civil deportation proceedings and criminal punishment. While the Court affirmed the government's broad authority to deport non-citizens via summary administrative processes, it held that this power does not extend to imposing infamous punishments. Wong Wing v. United States stands for the principle that once the government seeks to deprive an alien of liberty as punishment for a crime, constitutional criminal procedure safeguards apply. This ensures that even non-citizens within U.S. territory are protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments from being subjected to criminal penalties without a judicial trial.
Unlock the full brief for Wong Wing v. United States