Wong Wing v. United States

Last updated

Wong Wing v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1–2, 1896
Decided May 18, 1896
Full case nameWong Wing v. United States
Citations163 U.S. 228 ( more )
16 S. Ct. 977; 41 L. Ed. 140; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2260
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field  · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray  · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown  · George Shiras Jr.
Edward D. White  · Rufus W. Peckham
Case opinions
MajorityShiras, joined by Harlan, Gray, Brown, White, Peckham
Concur/dissentField
Brewer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

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.

Contents

The case began in 1892 when Wong Wing and three other Chinese nationals were arrested for unlawful presence in the United States, violating the Geary Act. A commissioner of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced the four men to 60 days imprisonment at hard labor, after which they would be deported to China. After the prisoners' petitions, for writs of habeas corpus were denied, the Supreme Court granted cert.

In May 1896, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment, ruling that Wing's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to sentence Wing to imprisonment at hard labor. The circuit court shouldn't have denied Wing's habeas corpus petition because Wing was sentenced to a criminal punishment without a jury trial. Thus the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment.

This case established that noncitizens subject to criminal proceedings are entitled to the same constitutional protections available to citizens. The Court held that the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments extend to foreign nationals as well as American citizens. The ruling was issued on the same day as the Court upheld racial segregation laws in its infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Background

Geary Act

The Geary Act of 1892, an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act, denied U.S. citizenship to Chinese immigrants. The Act required Chinese residents to carry residence certificates issued by the federal government to prove they entered the country legally. Section 4 of the Act of 1892 provides: [1]

That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period of not exceeding one year and thereafter removed from the United States.

— Geary Act of 1892, Chapter 60

Briefly, Chinese individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. faced up to a year of imprisonment and hard labor followed by deportation.

Incident

On July 15, 1892, John Graves, commissioner of the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ruled that Wong Wing, Lee Poy, Lee You Tong, and Chan Wah Dong were illegal Chinese in the United States and had no right to remain in the United States. John Graves ruled that these people be imprisoned in the Detroit House of Correction for 60 days of hard labor from and including the date of commitment; in the end, they were to be removed from the United States to China.

The Chinese thus immediately applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the judges of the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, requesting the release of their imprisonment and restraint of their liberty, alleging that doing so was unlawful, without warrant of law and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The rules were based on the Geary Act of1892,  entitled "An Act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. [2] "

District Appeal

On July 22, 1892, after hearing arguments from counsel, the district court ordered that the writ of habeas corpus be discharged and that the persons arrested be remanded to the custody of Nicholson, the keeper of the District house of correction, to serve their original sentences. Based on this decision, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Opinion of the Court

In a majority opinion by Justice Shiras, the Court explained that Congress has the power to exclude, deport, and detain classes of noncitizens as a matter of public policy. Because deportation is not a criminal punishment, Congress may deport noncitizens without a jury trial. However, imprisonment at hard labor is a criminal punishment, and imposing criminal punishment without a jury trial to establish a defendant's guilt violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court emphasized that constitutional protections are not limited to United States citizens. Any person within the United States is entitled to the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

As a resident in the United States, Wong Wing is entitled to the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Wing was being held without being afforded those protections. Accordingly, Wing's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed.

The Court first emphasized the validity of Chae Chan Ping v. United States (130 U.S. 581). Mr. Justice Field held that the Act to exclude Chinese laborers from the United States was a constitutional exercise of legislative power. The Court affirmed that Section 6 of the May 5, 1892 Act was constitutional and valid by reaffirming Fong Yue Ting v. United States (149 U.S. 698). The Court then cited Lem Moon Sing v. United States (158 U.S. 538), [3] in which the Court rejected the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Justice Harlan, expressing the opinion of the Court, said that Congress exercised its power to exclude aliens solely through the executive, without judicial intervention, as determined by our previous decisions.

The Court pointed out the present appeal presented a different question the questions previously determined. The current question was whether a Chinese person can be lawfully convicted and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a definite period by a commissioner without indictment or trial by jury. The question involved the constitutionality of Section 4 of the Act of 1892. the Court argued that:

We think it clear that detention, or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provisions for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens would be valid...Detention is not imprisonment in a legal sense.

— Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 235

However, the Geary Act imposed imprisonment and hard labor in addition to deportation in an attempt to deter violations of the Act. To this regard, the Court expressed:

But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.

— Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 237

The Court then cited Ex Parte Wilson (114 U.S. 428) [4] to declare that incarceration at hard labor is considered an infamous punishment. Also, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356, 369), the Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not limited to the protection of citizens. The Court applied the rule of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Applying this reasoning to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

— Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 238

The Court finally decided that Section 4 of the 1892 Act was invalid because it conflicted with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," and is also in conflict with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides" in all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

The Court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Concurring and Dissenting Decision

Justice Field concurred in part and dissented in part.

Justice Field agreed that Wong was entitled to be discharged from his arrest and imprisonment because the government could only lawfully punish both citizens and noncitizens after a jury trial. However, he expressed deep concern about the government's argument that constitutional protections do not apply to political offenses committed by those who illegally enter and remain in the United States. He emphasized that the right to deport and exclude noncitizens does not give the government the right to inflict harsh and brutal punishment on them without constitutional safeguards.

Justice Brewer took no part in the decision of this case.

Significance

Wong Wing v. United States was the first Supreme Court decision to invalidate a federal immigration statute, the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Bill of Rights protects aliens from the federal government, and the first Supreme Court decision to affirm the constitutional rights of illegal aliens. Wong Wing v. United States addressed the power of Congress over immigration, the constitutional protection of aliens from the federal government, the rights of illegal aliens, the distinction between civil detention and criminal penalties, and the nature of hard labor as punishment. [5]

A series of decisions issued by the judiciary in the 1880s and 1890s gave the executive branch broad authority to impose immigration restrictions in the name of national security. In Wong Wing v. United States, the Supreme Court further distinguished deportation from punishment. [6] This decision placed immigration in a separate government bureaucracy. Since then, immigration cases have been handled by immigration officials, and an independent immigration court system has made legal decisions with fewer civic protections. [7]

Wong Wing v. United States reaffirmed that deportation itself is not a punishment. That finding was later used to suggest that while immigration law violators cannot be sentenced to prison without constitutional due process, they can be detained (imprisoned) pending deportation. [8] Extending Wong Wing's rationale, the Court held that because deportation is not punishment, indefinite incarceration pending deportation is therefore not punishment. Similarly, deportation is a civil action, not a criminal action.

See also

Related Research Articles

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geary Act</span> US law of 1892 that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 with new requirements

The Geary Act was a United States law that extended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 by adding onerous new requirements. It was written by California Representative Thomas J. Geary and was passed by Congress on May 5, 1892.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, held that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), was a major decision of the US Supreme Court, where it decided that US courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a US-administered prison in Germany. The prisoners had at no time been on American sovereign territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</span> Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Key Provisions

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 9 and 10, 1922, and decided a month later on April 17. The case involved a Fifth Amendment rights issue centering on whether or not hard labor was an infamous punishment or whether imprisonment in a penitentiary was a necessity for punishment to be considered infamous.

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which confirmed that a sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction was not subject to the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury to determine the fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States constitutional criminal procedure</span> United States constitutional criminal procedure

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure.

United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters. The case held that "a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States" could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.

Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a Supreme Court of the United States case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause.

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 the 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Act of 1891</span>

The Immigration Act of 1891, also known as the 1891 Immigration Act, was a modification of the Immigration Act of 1882, focusing on immigration rules and enforcement mechanisms for foreigners arriving from countries other than China. It was the second major federal legislation related to the mechanisms and authority of immigration enforcement, the first being the Immigration Act of 1882. The law was passed on March 3, 1891, at the end of the term of the 51st United States Congress, and signed into law by then United States President Benjamin Harrison.

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.

Truax v Raich239 US 33 (1915) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor laws, the right to work, immigration law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court case that established the federal government's power to detain migrants at the border pending deportation. The Supreme Court, in a five to four decision, held that the Attorney General's continued exclusion of the unauthorized immigrant without a hearing does not amount to an unlawful detention, and the court may not temporarily admit such individuals into the United States pending arrangements for their departure abroad. Some consider the decision in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei as the Court's strongest statement of the plenary power doctrine as the power to permanently exclude noncitizens is based in U.S. sovereignty and largely immune from judicial control.

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that notably ruled that the executive and legislative branches have the inherent power to exclude immigrants from the United States, that courts lack jurisdiction regarding the deportation of individuals within the United States unless it is explicitly stated in law, and that the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States. In a four-to-three decision, this case firmly demonstrates the plenary powers of Congress and the Executive Branch, as it is one of the first cases that bars the judicial review of executive or legislative orders of exclusion in most circumstances.

References

  1. ↑ "Geary Act (1892)". Immigration History. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
  2. ↑ "Geary Act (1892)". Immigration History. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
  3. ↑ "Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
  4. ↑ "Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (1885)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
  5. ↑ Immigration stories. David A. Martin, Peter H. Schuck. New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press. 2005. ISBN   1-58778-873-X. OCLC   61661521.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  6. ↑ HESTER, TORRIE (2010). ""Protection, Not Punishment": Legislative and Judicial Formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882–1904". Journal of American Ethnic History. 30 (1): 11–36. doi:10.5406/jamerethnhist.30.1.0011. ISSN   0278-5927. JSTOR   10.5406/jamerethnhist.30.1.0011.
  7. ↑ "Wong Wing v. United States (1896)". Immigration History. Retrieved February 5, 2022.
  8. ↑ Saito, Natsu Taylor (2003). "The Enduring Effect of the Chinese Exclusion Cases: The Plenary Power Justification for On-Going Abuses of Human Rights". Asian American Law Journal. doi:10.15779/Z384K4H.
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.