31:
457:, a related challenge to the Chinese Exclusion Act that was decided against the US government. The Court opinion described the Chinese people as "vast hordes" "crowding in upon us: and stated that if "the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects."
616:, which would emerge in the latter half of the 20th century although it was not a direct precedent, and that term was not yet in use. Although the case did not touch on the authority of US consulates, it arguably addressed similar questions since the task of determining whether an individual would be allowed to enter the United States was then solely undertaken by the officer at the port of entry. By the mid-20th century, the main decision was made by consular officers evaluating visa applications.
726:
529:. An Amendment to the Act in 1884 would require all Chinese in the United States to obtain a re-entry permit prior to departure. Heong, who returned to the United States without a permit, was denied re-entry and appealed the decision. The appeal was granted, and Heong was allowed to re-enter the country. This is the only case of the five that was decided against the US government.
543:(1893): The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the United States government to deport Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese residents who were deemed by the US government to hold no valid residency permits. The decision reaffirmed that the US government's power to deport foreigners is an absolute and unqualified right, just like its power to regulate entry.
273:. Its 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."
597:
In this case and the subsequent
Chinese Exclusion Cases, the Supreme Court repeatedly sided with the US government against aliens by offering the rationale that immigration policy and enforcement are matters for the legislative and the executive branches. Some commentators argue that the case was an
387:
was filed on behalf of Ping, who requested for the captain to release him and to allow him to be presented in court. The captain complied, and Ping appeared before the court, which determined that he was being deprived of liberty, and it returned him to the control of the captain. Ping appealed the
280:
was passed, forbidding 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
464:
He clarified that the US government could pass new legislation overriding the terms of past treaties. In that case, the treaty would be treated as valid law only until the new legislation became effective. Although there were no direct precedents in the domain of immigration law, Field cited past
515:
The case is sometimes called the "Chinese
Exclusion Case" on account of being the most important case directly pertaining to the Chinese Exclusion Act. Some commentators use the term "Chinese Exclusion Cases" for a collection of this and four other cases that were decided in the aftermath of the
297:
on
October 1, 1888. 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.
602:
doctrine, which immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of
Congress and the executive branch of the federal government. Others have disagreed about the significance of these cases for plenary power. The defining case for the plenary power doctrine,
376:. On October 8, 1888, the ship landed within the port of San Francisco. He requested entry to the United States and presented his certificate. He was denied entry based on the Scott Act and was detained on board by Captain Walker, the captain of the
357:
He worked in the United States from 1875 to June 2, 1887, and left to visit his homeland in China after he had obtained a certificate that would entitle him to return to the United States and had been issued in accordance with provisions of the
450:
discriminatory against the
Chinese and so courted unpopularity in California. However, his opinion in this case had rhetoric that was more in line with public sentiment regarding the Chinese at the time and was consistent with his dissent in
244:
would not be used until the 20th century, the case was cited as a key precedent in the defining cases that established that doctrine. As such, it played an important role in limiting the role of the judiciary in shaping
500:
He noted that the judiciary was not the right place to appeal any violation of the terms of international treaties but that it was a diplomatic matter for the governments of the respective countries to sort out among
465:
precedents involving trade treaties in which the government had changed trade laws, negating the terms of previous treaties, and the courts had rejected appeals challenging the change in law. Examples cited included:
905:
265:
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.
415:
The appeal challenged the authority of the federal legislative and executive branches to overturn international treaties and implicitly claimed that any such overturning was subject to judicial oversight.
395:
The arguments for the case were heard by on March 28 and 29, 1889. Ping was represented by Thos. D. Riordan, Harvey S. Brown, George Hoadly, and Jas. C. Carter. Geo. A. Johnson, John F. Swift, and
732:
776:
269:
On
November 17, 1880, the treaty was amended to suspend immigration from China. The amendment was called the Treaty Regulating Immigration from China, and historians refer to it as the
1285:
547:
2482:
2477:
521:
453:
497:
and asserted that governments had the authority to regulate immigration in the national interest that existed even when the wisdom of particular decisions was in question.
411:
Several different arguments were made by the lawyers representing Ping, and the
Supreme Court's opinion on them would serve an important precedent for future decisions:
1005:
1882年的《排华法》（Chinese
Exclusion Act）……柴禅平诉合众国案（Chae Chan Ping v. United States）……1888年的《斯科特法》（Scott Act）……冯越亭诉合众国案（Fong Yue Ting v. United States）……国会又通过了《基瑞法》（Geary Act）
1256:
442:, who had risen to the position of Supreme Court justice after he had served on the California Supreme Court. Field had pushed back against legislation such as the
2174:
586:
1334:
1099:
713:
644:
72:
635:. Both decisions used reasoning that has been since rejected and are believed to have been influenced by the greater levels of racism existing at the time.
2502:
1076:
2507:
939:
835:
471:, 67 U.S. 481 (1862): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a change in the US tariff structure on hemp that overrode terms of a treaty with Russia.
419:
783:
1429:
809:
482:
He noted that when the
Burlingame Treaty was amended in 1880, the Chinese government had conceded US authority to regulate immigration from China.
438:
In its decision published on May 13, 1889, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the lower court in an opinion penned by Justice
1878:
1809:
1819:
1608:
2323:
1304:
2492:
1633:
485:
He noted past precedent in treaties and international diplomatic communication between the United States and other countries, including
2497:
2472:
1559:
623:, may have played a role in influencing the court decisions, which have been criticized by commentators and compared to the precedents
2092:
1671:
2487:
2028:
1208:
Maltz, Eric (April 2, 2012). "The Devil Made Me Do It: The Plenary Power Doctrine and the Myth of the Chinese Exclusion Case".
1924:
1549:
1032:
679:
1038:
992:
1422:
159:
577:, which held that a person born in the United States of Chinese citizens legally residing there automatically becomes a
567:(1905): The Supreme Court allowed Congress to deny the writ of habeas corpus even to persons claiming to be US citizens.
477:, 124 U.S. 190 (1888): This case upheld the US government's authority to interpret ambiguous treaty terms as it saw fit.
229:
to set immigration policy and to pass new legislation even if it overrode the terms of previous international treaties.
2005:
1856:
1840:
35:
2152:
953:
915:
878:
819:
2162:
2122:
2033:
612:
Some commentators have also cited the decisions made in this case as having precedential value for the doctrine of
246:
1814:
1576:
1564:
1415:
2400:
2338:
2226:
1554:
1187:
746:
539:
365:
On October 1, 1888, while he was outside the United States, the Scott Act became law and forbade his re-entry.
339:
323:
2236:
2189:
2132:
2017:
1930:
573:
331:
315:
2194:
2117:
2049:
2023:
1710:
1390:
811:
China and the International System, 1840-1949: Power, Presence, and Perceptions in a Century of Humiliation
1354:
839:
2343:
2184:
2137:
2102:
2071:
1480:
1120:
2179:
2043:
2038:
2011:
1901:
1845:
1792:
1623:
2348:
2147:
2097:
1468:
613:
241:
2358:
1242:
1168:
2328:
1941:
1770:
1666:
1372:
1267:
418:
The appeal argued that the right of visitation in a treaty was a form of property protected by the
2087:
240:
and the government's authority to overturn the terms of international treaties. Although the term
2262:
2257:
2142:
1715:
563:
426:
1381:
1142:
Chin, Gabriel (May 19, 2005). "Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting: The Origins of Plenary Power".
1895:
1438:
1018:
625:
620:
525:(1884): Heong had lived in the United States and left to visit China before the passage of the
286:
1221:
581:. The decision established an important precedent in the Supreme Courts interpretation of the
368:
Chae Chan Ping departed on his return journey to the United States on September 7, 1888, from
2451:
2363:
2298:
2066:
1861:
1834:
1824:
1803:
1731:
1533:
1508:
1338:
1229:
1155:
1147:
1103:
1080:
717:
605:
526:
439:
400:
359:
277:
270:
226:
215:
131:
123:
64:
1363:
425:
The appeal referenced previous criticisms by legal scholars of the constitutionality of the
2420:
2393:
2368:
2318:
2107:
1851:
1797:
1736:
1475:
571:
Another related case that was decided somewhat differently by the Supreme Court is that of
143:
261:, which established formal friendly relations between the two countries and granted China
100:
Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of California
8:
2446:
2127:
1983:
1971:
1959:
1935:
1829:
1786:
1628:
1581:
948:(in Chinese (Taiwan)) (初版 ed.). 新北市: Immigration to the United States. p. 203.
870:
671:
631:
262:
1913:
1345:
281:
temporarily leaving the United States. On October 1, 1888, the US government passed the
2293:
2241:
2060:
1997:
1977:
1953:
1758:
1661:
1591:
1503:
1463:
1106:
720:
582:
1407:
1083:
619:
The purported significance attached to the case, which was decided at a time of large
2313:
1964:
1775:
1704:
1217:
1143:
1028:
959:
949:
921:
911:
874:
815:
675:
443:
258:
222:
155:
135:
2430:
2303:
2169:
1947:
1867:
1781:
1638:
1613:
1209:
396:
389:
347:
294:
282:
211:
207:
189:
225:
of 1868. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld the authority of the
67:
2054:
1919:
1764:
1618:
1596:
1569:
1487:
1022:
984:
863:
237:
232:
The decision was an important precedent for the Supreme Court's deference to the
115:
1586:
2353:
2272:
2231:
2112:
1907:
1645:
1603:
963:
2466:
2156:
1752:
1513:
925:
777:"Challenging the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability in Immigration Cases"
599:
556:
384:
307:
233:
592:
2425:
1681:
1676:
1458:
943:
290:
2405:
2333:
2267:
1518:
1213:
486:
399:
represented the State of California, and Sol. Gen. Jenks represented the
147:
2277:
578:
311:
83:
314:, in 1875. His Chinese name is variously reported to be Chí Chéngpíng(
2308:
1872:
552:
369:
1399:
460:
Field offered a number of reasons for the Supreme Court's decision:
2388:
1990:
1528:
1523:
221:
One of the grounds of the challenge was the Act ran afoul of the
555:
of 1892 was upheld to exclude foreigners from entry without any
2415:
1453:
1184:"Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?"
494:
490:
79:
30:
2039:
Monosodium glutamate controversy (Chinese restaurant syndrome)
1183:
670:. New Approaches to International History series. London, UK:
2410:
865:
The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions
593:
Value as precedent for later doctrines in immigration law
733:
public domain material from this U.S government document
257:
In 1868, the United States and China agreed to into the
1437:
1261:
Law Professors in Support of Respondent (Kerry v. Din)"
306:
Chae Chan Ping was a Chinese citizen who had moved to
2483:
United States immigration and naturalization case law
2478:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court
645:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 130
1089:
668:
The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History
862:
2464:
977:
510:
1066:
551:(1895): The decision by the US Congress in the
1879:Union Colliery Co of British Columbia v Bryden
1810:Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration (1885)
1118:
1820:Attack on Squak Valley Chinese laborers, 1885
1423:
991:(in Simplified Chinese). February 15, 2017.
932:
505:
2503:Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States
1249:
293:, the act was signed into law by President
202:, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), better known as the
1430:
1416:
609:(1950), did not explicitly cite the case.
2508:Chinese-American culture in San Francisco
1672:Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees
1283:
1112:
938:
869:. Oxford University Press, USA. p.
770:
768:
766:
764:
705:
703:
701:
699:
697:
695:
693:
691:
598:important precedent in establishing the
1010:
828:
661:
659:
2465:
995:from the original on February 16, 2017
814:. State University of New York Press.
1925:Soviet deportations of Chinese people
1411:
1207:
1181:
897:
807:
761:
688:
665:
210:on May 13, 1889, that challenged the
18:1889 United States Supreme Court case
1141:
860:
656:
2029:Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66
1016:
945:美國華人史 : 十九世紀至二十一世紀初, 一百五十年華人史詩
739:
13:
2493:Deportation from the United States
2006:Legislation on Chinese Indonesians
1857:Vancouver anti-Chinese riots, 1886
1841:1885 Chinese expulsion from Eureka
1123:. Immigration to the United States
1041:from the original on July 25, 2020
903:
774:
749:. Immigration to the United States
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
2519:
2473:United States Supreme Court cases
1341:581 (1889) is available from:
1323:
808:Scott, David (November 7, 2008).
747:"Chae Chan Ping v. United States"
2163:Artificial Intelligence Cold War
2123:2014 Vietnam anti-China protests
2034:1967 anti-Chinese riots in Burma
1182:Feere, John (February 1, 2009).
724:
388:order, and the case reached the
247:immigration to the United States
29:
1815:Chinese Immigration Act of 1885
1331:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
1288:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
1201:
1175:
1135:
1053:
910:(in Chinese (Taiwan)). 時報文化出版.
710:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
533:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
199:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
54:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
24:Chae Chan Ping v. United States
2488:1889 in United States case law
2401:Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees
1284:Villazor, Rose Coison (2015).
1188:Center for Immigration Studies
854:
801:
548:Lem Moon Sing v. United States
540:Fong Yue Ting v. United States
343:
335:
327:
319:
1:
2498:China–United States relations
2190:2024 Papua New Guinean unrest
2153:China–United States trade war
2018:Internment of Chinese-Indians
1931:Chinese Immigration Act, 1923
650:
574:United States v. Wong Kim Ark
511:Other Chinese Exclusion Cases
252:
236:of the legislative branch in
2195:Boycotts of Chinese products
2118:2013 Tiananmen Square attack
2050:1969 race riots of Singapore
2024:1964 race riots in Singapore
1711:2nd Sangley Rebellion (1639)
1303:(1): 137–164. Archived from
206:, was a case decided by the
7:
2185:2021 Solomon Islands unrest
2175:COVID-19 pandemic incidents
2072:May 1998 riots of Indonesia
1290:: Immigration as Property""
638:
522:Chew Heong v. United States
454:Chew Heong v. United States
433:
10:
2524:
2180:2021 Atlanta spa shootings
2044:13 May incident (Malaysia)
2012:Chinese Confession Program
1902:Vancouver anti-Asian riots
1846:Chinese head tax in Canada
1793:San Francisco riot of 1877
1277:
942:; 陈荣彬 (2018). "第九章 排华法案".
838:. Harpweek. Archived from
731:This article incorporates
2439:
2381:
2286:
2250:
2214:
2207:
2148:2015 Aksu colliery attack
2098:2008 Kunming bus bombings
2080:
1888:
1745:
1724:
1697:
1690:
1654:
1542:
1496:
1469:The Unparalleled Invasion
1446:
1121:"Chinese Exclusion Cases"
614:consular nonreviewability
506:Relation with other cases
406:
351:
242:consular nonreviewability
188:
183:
172:
167:
109:
104:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
28:
23:
2133:April 2014 Ürümqi attack
1942:Second Sino-Japanese War
1771:Chinese massacre of 1871
1667:Asiatic Exclusion League
1268:American Bar Association
861:Hall, Kermit L. (1999).
301:
43:Argued March 28–29, 1889
2263:Ita Martadinata Haryono
2143:2015 Plaza Low Yat riot
2093:Abacus Bank prosecution
1716:Sangley Massacre (1662)
666:Crean, Jeffrey (2024).
564:United States v. Ju Toy
516:Chinese Exclusion Act:
427:Alien and Sedition Acts
2138:May 2014 Ürümqi attack
2103:July 2009 Ürümqi riots
1896:White Australia policy
1439:Anti-Chinese sentiment
1237:Cite journal requires
1163:Cite journal requires
626:Dred Scott v. Sandford
621:anti-Chinese sentiment
287:William Lawrence Scott
204:Chinese Exclusion Case
2452:Hong Kong nationalism
2088:2006 Nukuʻalofa riots
2067:1997 Banjarmasin riot
1862:Hells Canyon Massacre
1835:Rock Springs massacre
1825:Issaquah riot of 1885
1804:Chinese Exclusion Act
1732:1740 Batavia massacre
1534:Plaek Phibunsongkhram
1509:Andrew Jackson Bryant
1061:American Conservatism
606:Knauff v. Shaughnessy
535:(1889) (current page)
527:Chinese Exclusion Act
440:Stephen Johnson Field
401:US federal government
360:Chinese Exclusion Act
346:), and Cài Chāngpíng(
278:Chinese Exclusion Act
271:Angell Treaty of 1880
227:US federal government
216:Chinese Exclusion Act
214:, an addendum to the
160:Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
2108:2011 Kashgar attacks
1852:Seattle riot of 1886
1798:New Zealand head tax
1737:1782 Saigon massacre
1476:Japanese nationalism
1310:on February 24, 2016
1214:10.2139/ssrn.2033249
1119:Thomas Tandy Lewis.
1096:Whitney v. Robertson
904:邱彰 (April 1, 2018).
789:on December 18, 2015
587:Fourteenth Amendment
475:Whitney v. Robertson
45:Decided May 13, 1889
2447:Chinese imperialism
2128:2014 Kunming attack
1984:Home Office 213/926
1972:Sook Ching massacre
1960:Japanese war crimes
1936:Wanpaoshan Incident
1830:Tacoma riot of 1885
1787:Trout Creek Outrage
1391:Library of Congress
1297:Oklahoma Law Review
842:on January 10, 2015
672:Bloomsbury Academic
632:Plessy v. Fergusson
372:, on the steamship
340:traditional Chinese
324:traditional Chinese
263:most favored nation
2061:Cambodian genocide
1998:Mergosono massacre
1978:Changkiao massacre
1954:Nanshitou Massacre
1759:Lambing Flat riots
1662:Anti-Chinese Union
1592:Racism in Malaysia
1504:Adriaan Valckenier
1464:Chinese emigration
985:"苛法猛于虎：美国排华案的宪法往事"
836:"Scott Act (1888)"
583:Citizenship Clause
332:simplified Chinese
316:simplified Chinese
120:Associate Justices
2460:
2459:
2394:Chinaman's chance
2377:
2376:
2344:Mi Gao Huang Chen
2314:Franklin Feng Tao
2203:
2202:
1965:Three Alls Policy
1776:Pigtail Ordinance
1705:Sangley Rebellion
1034:978-986-323-231-5
1024:華人與美國法律: 歷史性的法院判決
989:wemedia.ifeng.com
681:978-1-350-23394-2
444:Pigtail Ordinance
429:, passed in 1798.
330:), Chái Chánpíng(
259:Burlingame Treaty
223:Burlingame Treaty
212:Scott Act of 1888
195:
194:
176:Field, joined by
156:Samuel Blatchford
136:Joseph P. Bradley
78:9 S. Ct. 623; 32
2515:
2431:Sick man of Asia
2421:Locust/Wongchung
2339:Leung Chi-cheung
2212:
2211:
2170:China Initiative
1948:Nanking Massacre
1914:Torreón massacre
1868:Scott Act (1888)
1782:Page Act of 1875
1695:
1694:
1639:China Initiative
1432:
1425:
1418:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1398:
1395:
1389:
1386:
1380:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1362:
1359:
1353:
1350:
1344:
1319:
1317:
1315:
1309:
1294:
1272:
1271:
1265:
1253:
1247:
1246:
1240:
1235:
1233:
1225:
1205:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1194:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1159:
1151:
1139:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1128:
1116:
1110:
1093:
1087:
1073:Taylor v. Morton
1070:
1064:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1048:
1046:
1014:
1008:
1007:
1002:
1000:
981:
975:
974:
972:
970:
936:
930:
929:
901:
895:
894:
889:
887:
868:
858:
852:
851:
849:
847:
832:
826:
825:
805:
799:
798:
796:
794:
788:
782:. Archived from
781:
775:Dobkin, Donald.
772:
759:
758:
756:
754:
743:
737:
728:
727:
707:
686:
685:
663:
469:Taylor v. Morton
397:Stephen M. White
390:US Supreme Court
353:
345:
337:
329:
321:
295:Grover Cleveland
208:US Supreme Court
132:Stephen J. Field
124:Samuel F. Miller
105:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
2523:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2456:
2435:
2373:
2282:
2246:
2199:
2076:
2055:Malari incident
1920:1918 Kudus riot
1884:
1765:Anti-Coolie Act
1741:
1720:
1686:
1650:
1597:Ketuanan Melayu
1570:Racism in Japan
1538:
1492:
1488:De-Sinicization
1442:
1436:
1402:
1396:
1393:
1387:
1384:
1378:
1375:
1369:
1366:
1360:
1357:
1351:
1348:
1342:
1326:
1313:
1311:
1307:
1292:
1280:
1275:
1263:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1238:
1236:
1227:
1226:
1206:
1202:
1192:
1190:
1180:
1176:
1164:
1162:
1153:
1152:
1140:
1136:
1126:
1124:
1117:
1113:
1094:
1090:
1071:
1067:
1058:
1054:
1044:
1042:
1035:
1019:"第十四章 當法律抵觸條約時"
1015:
1011:
998:
996:
983:
982:
978:
968:
966:
956:
937:
933:
918:
907:龍與鷹的搏鬥: 美國華人法律史
902:
898:
892:Scott act 1888.
885:
883:
881:
859:
855:
845:
843:
834:
833:
829:
822:
806:
802:
792:
790:
786:
779:
773:
762:
752:
750:
745:
744:
740:
725:
708:
689:
682:
664:
657:
653:
641:
595:
513:
508:
436:
420:Fifth Amendment
409:
304:
255:
238:immigration law
158:
146:
134:
116:Melville Fuller
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
2521:
2511:
2510:
2505:
2500:
2495:
2490:
2485:
2480:
2475:
2458:
2457:
2455:
2454:
2449:
2443:
2441:
2437:
2436:
2434:
2433:
2428:
2423:
2418:
2413:
2408:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2385:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2374:
2372:
2371:
2366:
2361:
2356:
2354:Teoh Beng Hock
2351:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2331:
2329:Jiansheng Chen
2326:
2321:
2316:
2311:
2306:
2301:
2296:
2290:
2288:
2284:
2283:
2281:
2280:
2275:
2273:Velma Demerson
2270:
2265:
2260:
2254:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2245:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2222:Chae Chan Ping
2218:
2216:
2209:
2205:
2204:
2201:
2200:
2198:
2197:
2192:
2187:
2182:
2177:
2172:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2150:
2145:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2120:
2115:
2113:Wolf Amendment
2110:
2105:
2100:
2095:
2090:
2084:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2075:
2074:
2069:
2064:
2058:
2052:
2047:
2041:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2021:
2015:
2009:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1987:
1981:
1975:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1951:
1939:
1933:
1928:
1922:
1917:
1911:
1908:Beipu uprising
1905:
1899:
1892:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1883:
1882:
1876:
1870:
1865:
1859:
1854:
1849:
1843:
1838:
1832:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1801:
1795:
1790:
1784:
1779:
1773:
1768:
1762:
1756:
1749:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1740:
1739:
1734:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1701:
1699:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1685:
1684:
1679:
1674:
1669:
1664:
1658:
1656:
1655:By institution
1652:
1651:
1649:
1648:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1631:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1594:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1506:
1500:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1466:
1456:
1450:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1435:
1434:
1427:
1420:
1412:
1406:
1405:
1373:Google Scholar
1325:
1324:External links
1322:
1321:
1320:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1248:
1239:|journal=
1200:
1174:
1165:|journal=
1134:
1111:
1088:
1065:
1063:, pp. 109-111.
1052:
1033:
1009:
976:
954:
931:
916:
896:
879:
853:
827:
820:
800:
760:
738:
687:
680:
654:
652:
649:
648:
647:
640:
637:
594:
591:
569:
568:
560:
544:
536:
530:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
502:
498:
483:
480:
479:
478:
472:
435:
432:
431:
430:
423:
416:
408:
405:
303:
300:
285:. Authored by
254:
251:
193:
192:
186:
185:
181:
180:
174:
170:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
144:John M. Harlan
121:
118:
113:
107:
106:
102:
101:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2520:
2509:
2506:
2504:
2501:
2499:
2496:
2494:
2491:
2489:
2486:
2484:
2481:
2479:
2476:
2474:
2471:
2470:
2468:
2453:
2450:
2448:
2445:
2444:
2442:
2438:
2432:
2429:
2427:
2424:
2422:
2419:
2417:
2414:
2412:
2409:
2407:
2404:
2402:
2399:
2395:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2387:
2386:
2384:
2380:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2360:
2357:
2355:
2352:
2350:
2347:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2325:
2322:
2320:
2317:
2315:
2312:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2302:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2292:
2291:
2289:
2285:
2279:
2276:
2274:
2271:
2269:
2266:
2264:
2261:
2259:
2256:
2255:
2253:
2249:
2243:
2240:
2238:
2235:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2227:Fong Yue Ting
2225:
2223:
2220:
2219:
2217:
2213:
2210:
2206:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2188:
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2171:
2168:
2164:
2161:
2160:
2158:
2157:Trump tariffs
2154:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2119:
2116:
2114:
2111:
2109:
2106:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2096:
2094:
2091:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2083:
2079:
2073:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2062:
2059:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2035:
2032:
2030:
2027:
2025:
2022:
2019:
2016:
2013:
2010:
2007:
2004:
1999:
1996:
1995:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1958:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1929:
1927:(1920s–1930s)
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1915:
1912:
1909:
1906:
1903:
1900:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1891:
1887:
1880:
1877:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1842:
1839:
1836:
1833:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1791:
1788:
1785:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1774:
1772:
1769:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1754:
1753:Buckland Riot
1751:
1750:
1748:
1744:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1727:
1723:
1717:
1714:
1712:
1709:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1693:
1689:
1683:
1680:
1678:
1675:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:United States
1632:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1545:
1541:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1514:Denis Kearney
1512:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1499:
1497:By persecutor
1495:
1489:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1465:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1433:
1428:
1426:
1421:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1401:
1392:
1383:
1374:
1365:
1356:
1355:CourtListener
1347:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1291:
1289:
1282:
1281:
1269:
1262:
1260:
1259:Amicus Curiae
1252:
1244:
1231:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1204:
1189:
1185:
1178:
1170:
1157:
1149:
1145:
1138:
1122:
1115:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1062:
1056:
1040:
1036:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1013:
1006:
994:
990:
986:
980:
965:
961:
957:
955:9789578630819
951:
947:
946:
941:
935:
927:
923:
919:
917:9789868835139
913:
909:
908:
900:
893:
882:
880:9780195139242
876:
872:
867:
866:
857:
841:
837:
831:
823:
821:9780791477427
817:
813:
812:
804:
785:
778:
771:
769:
767:
765:
748:
742:
736:
734:
723: (1889).
722:
719:
715:
711:
706:
704:
702:
700:
698:
696:
694:
692:
683:
677:
673:
669:
662:
660:
655:
646:
643:
642:
636:
634:
633:
628:
627:
622:
617:
615:
610:
608:
607:
601:
600:plenary power
590:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
566:
565:
561:
558:
557:habeas corpus
554:
550:
549:
545:
542:
541:
537:
534:
531:
528:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
476:
473:
470:
467:
466:
463:
462:
461:
458:
456:
455:
449:
445:
441:
428:
424:
421:
417:
414:
413:
412:
404:
402:
398:
393:
391:
386:
385:habeas corpus
381:
379:
375:
371:
366:
363:
361:
355:
349:
341:
333:
325:
317:
313:
309:
308:San Francisco
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:In 1882, the
274:
272:
267:
264:
260:
250:
248:
243:
239:
235:
234:plenary power
230:
228:
224:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:
191:
187:
182:
179:
175:
171:
166:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:Chief Justice
111:
110:
108:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
2287:21st century
2258:Vincent Chin
2251:20th century
2237:Wong Kim Ark
2221:
2215:19th century
2081:21st century
1994:(1945–1947)
1989:
1944:(1937-1945)
1889:20th century
1746:19th century
1725:18th century
1698:17th century
1682:Uyoku dantai
1677:Tsagaan Khas
1609:Nazi Germany
1459:Yellow Peril
1441:(Sinophobia)
1330:
1312:. Retrieved
1305:the original
1300:
1296:
1287:
1258:
1251:
1230:cite journal
1203:
1193:February 27,
1191:. Retrieved
1177:
1156:cite journal
1137:
1125:. Retrieved
1114:
1109: (1888).
1095:
1091:
1086: (1862).
1072:
1068:
1060:
1055:
1043:. Retrieved
1023:
1017:陶龍生 (2017).
1012:
1004:
997:. Retrieved
988:
979:
967:. Retrieved
944:
934:
906:
899:
891:
884:. Retrieved
864:
856:
844:. Retrieved
840:the original
830:
810:
803:
791:. Retrieved
784:the original
751:. Retrieved
741:
730:
709:
667:
630:
624:
618:
611:
604:
596:
572:
570:
562:
546:
538:
532:
520:
514:
474:
468:
459:
452:
447:
446:, which was
437:
410:
394:
382:
377:
373:
367:
364:
356:
305:
291:Pennsylvania
275:
268:
256:
231:
220:
203:
198:
197:
196:
184:Laws applied
177:
168:Case opinion
151:
139:
127:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
2426:Shina/Zhina
2406:Ching chong
2369:Michelle Go
2359:Xiaoxing Xi
2349:Sherry Chen
2334:Jiayang Fan
2268:Qian Xuesen
2063:(1975–1979)
2014:(1956–1965)
1986:(1945–1946)
1956:(1942-1945)
1950:(1937–1938)
1898:(1901–1973)
1875:(1892–1943)
1848:(1885–1923)
1806:(1882–1943)
1800:(1881–1944)
1761:(1860–1861)
1691:By incident
1614:Philippines
1519:Hideki Tojo
1314:January 30,
1127:October 24,
1059:McCloskey,
940:Chang, Iris
886:January 16,
846:January 16,
753:October 23,
501:themselves.
487:Switzerland
148:Horace Gray
82:1068; 1889
2467:Categories
2364:Yao Pan Ma
2324:Haoyang Yu
2299:Danny Chen
2278:Wen Ho Lee
1543:By country
1447:Background
1400:OpenJurist
1257:"Brief of
964:1057903458
793:January 8,
651:References
579:US citizen
383:A writ of
312:California
253:Background
84:U.S. LEXIS
2319:Gang Chen
2309:Eileen Gu
2294:Anming Hu
2232:Mary Tape
2208:By victim
1873:Geary Act
1619:Singapore
1560:Indonesia
1550:Hong Kong
999:April 25,
926:846888421
553:Geary Act
370:Hong Kong
283:Scott Act
218:of 1882.
190:Scott Act
178:unanimous
60:Citations
2389:Chinaman
2008:(1950s-)
1629:Thailand
1587:Malaysia
1329:Text of
1045:July 25,
1039:Archived
1027:. 聯合文學.
993:Archived
639:See also
448:de facto
434:Decision
173:Majority
2440:Related
2242:Yick Wo
1991:Bersiap
1646:Vietnam
1604:Myanmar
1529:Pol Pot
1524:Suharto
1481:Minzoku
1364:Findlaw
1346:Cornell
1278:Sources
1222:2033249
969:May 12,
585:of the
559:relief.
348:Chinese
2416:Chinky
2304:Ee Lee
2057:(1974)
2046:(1969)
2020:(1962)
2000:(1947)
1980:(1943)
1974:(1942)
1938:(1931)
1916:(1911)
1910:(1907)
1904:(1907)
1881:(1899)
1864:(1887)
1837:(1885)
1789:(1876)
1778:(1873)
1767:(1862)
1755:(1857)
1707:(1603)
1624:Taiwan
1454:Coolie
1403:
1397:
1394:
1388:
1385:
1382:Justia
1379:
1376:
1370:
1367:
1361:
1358:
1352:
1349:
1343:
1220:
1148:722681
1146:
1098:,
1075:,
1031:
962:
952:
924:
914:
877:
818:
729:
712:,
678:
495:Mexico
493:, and
491:France
407:Issues
378:Belgic
374:Belgic
350::
342::
334::
326::
318::
154:
152:·
150:
142:
140:·
138:
130:
128:·
126:
80:L. Ed.
2411:Chink
2382:Slurs
1577:Korea
1565:Japan
1555:India
1337:
1308:(PDF)
1293:(PDF)
1264:(PDF)
1102:
1079:
787:(PDF)
780:(PDF)
716:
302:Facts
97:Prior
1582:Laos
1339:U.S.
1316:2017
1243:help
1218:SSRN
1195:2016
1169:help
1144:SSRN
1129:2015
1104:U.S.
1081:U.S.
1047:2020
1029:ISBN
1001:2019
971:2019
960:OCLC
950:ISBN
922:OCLC
912:ISBN
888:2015
875:ISBN
848:2015
816:ISBN
795:2016
755:2015
718:U.S.
676:ISBN
86:1778
73:more
65:U.S.
63:130
1335:130
1210:doi
1107:190
1100:124
1084:481
721:581
714:130
629:or
354:).
352:蔡昌平
344:柴禪平
336:柴禅平
328:遲成平
320:迟成平
289:of
68:581
2469::
2159:)
1333:,
1301:68
1299:.
1295:.
1286:""
1266:.
1234::
1232:}}
1228:{{
1216:.
1186:.
1160::
1158:}}
1154:{{
1077:67
1037:.
1021:.
1003:.
987:.
958:.
920:.
890:.
873:.
871:53
763:^
690:^
674:.
658:^
589:.
489:,
403:.
392:.
380:.
362:.
338:;
322:;
310:,
249:.
2155:(
1431:e
1424:t
1417:v
1318:.
1270:.
1245:)
1241:(
1224:.
1212::
1197:.
1171:)
1167:(
1150:.
1131:.
1049:.
973:.
928:.
850:.
824:.
797:.
757:.
735:.
684:.
422:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.