Chy Lung v. Freeman

Last updated
Chy Lung v. Freeman
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 13–14, 1876
Decided March 20, 1876
Full case nameChy Lung v. Freeman
Citations92 U.S. 275 ( more )
2 Otto 275; 23 L. Ed. 550
Case history
PriorAppeal from the California High Court
Holding
The power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage relations with foreign relations, rest with the US federal government, rather than that the states.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford  · Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller  · David Davis
Stephen J. Field  · William Strong
Joseph P. Bradley  · Ward Hunt
Case opinion
MajorityMiller, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Burlingame Treaty

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), [1] was a US Supreme Court case that ruled that the powers to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations rest with the US federal government, rather than that of the states. [2] [3] [4] The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, [5] most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012). [6]

Contents

Background

Immigration from China to the Western United States, particularly California, had picked up in the mid-19th century because of the California Gold Rush. There was hostility to Chinese immigration from many Californian settlers, particularly among labor unions representing white laborers. The California State Legislature enacted a number of laws to make the state unwelcoming to Chinese immigration, including the Anti-Coolie Act in 1862.

The US federal government, on the other hand, was pursuing a more friendly approach to the Chinese government. In 1868, both countries agreed to the Burlingame Treaty in which China was granted most favored nation status for trade, and both countries would freely permit immigration of the citizens of the other country but without any promise of a path to citizenship. Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1870 explicitly restricted naturalization to blacks and whites, but citizenship at birth was still open to all, as the Supreme Court would affirm in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1878).

In 1875, California passed a statute authorizing the immigration commissioner to inspect passengers arriving in California at a cost of 75 cents per inspection, which was levied on the passenger, and giving him the authority to deny entry to passengers who were suspected of being lewd and debauched. However, those suspected could still be allowed entry if the captain of the ship paid a bond for them.

Similar statutes and associated court cases

Two other United States states, New York and Louisiana, had similar statutes, which were challenged around the same time:

Facts

There were 22 women from China, including Chy Lung, among the passengers on the steamer Japan that journeyed from China to San Francisco, arriving in 1875. [9] The immigration commissioner examined the passengers and identified Chy Lung and the other women as "lewd and debauched women." The captain of the ship had the option of paying a $500 bond (equivalent to $13,700in 2022) per woman to allow her to land for the ostensible purpose to "indemnify all the counties, towns, and cities of California against liability for her support or maintenance for two years," but the captain refused to pay the bond and detained the women on board.

They sued out a writ of habeas corpus , which led to them being moved into the custody of the Sheriff of the County and City of San Francisco, where they stayed awaiting deportation upon the return of Japan, which had already left for China. [2]

The women refused to be deported to China and appealed the decision to deport them. The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute that was used to deny them entry, and it upheld their deportation. The women appealed the decision in the US Supreme Court, [2] the first case to appear there that involved a Chinese litigant. [9]

Decision

Justice Stephen Johnson Field ordered the release of all of the women from the sheriff's custody. However, Chy Lung still pressed the case to the Supreme Court and sought to test the constitutionality of the statute that had been used to imprison her and her companions. [2]

On October 1, 1875, the Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of Chy Lung. Its primary argument was that the federal government, rather than that of the states, was in charge of immigration policy and diplomatic relations with other nations. Therefore, it was not up to California to impose restrictions on Chinese immigration. The Supreme Court also noted that the action by California could jeopardize foreign relations for the US government by running afoul of its treaty obligations. [2] [3] [10]

The Supreme Court noted that although states could make reasonable and necessary regulations concerning paupers and convicted criminals, the statute went far beyond that and was therefore extortionary. [3]

The court was also critical of the government of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case. [2]

The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched. [2]

Page Act

Around the time that the case was decided, the US federal government passed its first official policy significantly restricting immigration along lines similar to the California statute that had been deemed unconstitutional. The Page Act of 1875 prohibited the entry of immigrants considered "undesirable," a category that was intended to include forced laborers and female prostitutes and applied to people of Chinese citizenship and descent. The bar on female prostitutes was the Act's most heavily-enforced aspect. The implementation mechanics involved prescreening of Chinese women in Hong Kong to ascertain their good moral character and to certify that they were not prostitutes. That was very different from the operation of the California statute, which involved inspection by the immigration commissioner after the ship had landed.

In subsequent years, with the Angell Treaty of 1880 and Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), the US government would significantly restrict Chinese immigration. Later decisions on cases litigated by Chinese litigants challenging US immigration enforcement tended to be decided against the litigants and for the government (the most important of them, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, was Chae Chan Ping v. United States ). However, as far as the decisions deferred to the federal government's authority, they were consistent with Chy Lung v. Freeman.

Significance

Judge Denny Chin, a circuit court judge in the United States who famously sentenced Bernie Madoff, arranged for the enactment of a courtroom drama about the case. He considered the case historic because it was the first by a Chinese litigant and one that ruled for the litigant at a time of rising sentiment against Chinese and other immigration, with the Page Act coming into force. [9]

The case has also since been cited in arguments made by legal counsel and in opinions given by judges in Supreme Court decisions. [5] Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law to devote state law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The Supreme Court cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do, and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court, in an opinion by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. created a test to determine what constituted obscene material: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and whether the material was utterly without redeeming social value. Although the Court upheld Roth’s conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, it drastically loosened obscenity laws. The decision dissatisfied both social conservatives who thought that it had gone too far in tolerating sexual imagery, and liberals who felt that it infringed on the rights of consenting adults.

Delegata potestas non potest delegari is a principle in constitutional and administrative law that means in Latin that "no delegated powers can be further delegated". Alternatively, it can be stated delegatus non potest delegare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tucker Act</span> 1887 U.S. federal statute

The Tucker Act is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Office for Immigration Review</span> Office of the US Department of Justice

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry Billings Brown</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1891 to 1906

Henry Billings Brown was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1891 to 1906.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), better known as the Chinese Exclusion Case, was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on May 13, 1889, that challenged the Scott Act of 1888, an addendum to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on February 25, 1976, that challenged Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code.

References

  1. ↑ "Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments" (PDF). Retrieved November 8, 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876).
  3. 1 2 3 "Chy Lung v. Freeman". Immigration To The United States. Retrieved November 5, 2015.
  4. ↑ "Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875)". Constitutional Rights Foundation: Educating About Immigration. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  5. 1 2 "Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876)". Court Listener. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
  6. 1 2 Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387 (2012).
  7. ↑ Henderson v. Mayor of City of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1875).
  8. ↑ "Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York". Immigration To The United States. October 1, 1875. Retrieved November 8, 2015.
  9. 1 2 3 Yuan, Elizabeth (September 4, 2013). "'22 Lewd Chinese Women' and Other Courtroom Dramas. A U.S. circuit judge brings historic Asian-American trials back to life". The Atlantic . Retrieved November 8, 2015.
  10. ↑ John Davison Lawson (January 1, 1883). Leading Cases Simplified: A Collection of the Leading Cases in Equity and Constitutional Law. F. H. Thomas & Company. ISBN   9780665108457., pp. 269-271
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.