Yamataya v. Fisher

Last updated

Yamataya v. Fisher
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 24, 1903
Decided April 6, 1903
Full case nameKaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher
Citations189 U.S. 86 ( more )
23 S. Ct. 611; 47 L. Ed. 721
Case history
PriorBoard of Special Inquiry found Yamataya to be in violation of the Immigration Act of 1891 and was subject to deportation.
Holding
The courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair, but procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan  · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown  · Edward D. White
Rufus W. Peckham  · Joseph McKenna
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · William R. Day
Case opinions
MajorityHarlan, joined by Fuller, Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day
DissentBrewer, Peckham
Laws applied
Immigration Act of 1891

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. [1] [2]

Contents

The case was the first time that the Supreme Court allowed judicial review of a procedural due process claim. [3]

Background

The passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted Chinese immigration to the United States but also provided for the deportation of Chinese immigrants who entered the United States in violation of the exclusion laws. [4] In 1892, Congress passed the Geary Act which significantly expanded deportation under Chinese exclusion by introducing a system of residence certificates for all laborers of Chinese descent. [5] Laborer who did not have a certificate at a deportation hearing would be deported. The Immigration Act of 1882 allowed for the exclusion and deportation of immigrants if they were immoral, criminal, mentally defective, or unable to support themselves. [6] In 1891, Congress extended the federal government's power to deport immigrants by adding categories of excludable and deportable immigrants to include idiots, the insane, paupers, polygamists, those likely to become a public charge, those convicted of a felony or some other crime, and those suffering from contagious diseases. [7] In 1903, Congress passed another general immigration act, which added anarchists and political radicals to the list of both excludable and deportable immigrants.

General immigration deportations were heard before a Board of Special Inquiry staffed by three immigration officers. Appeals went to a Board of Special Inquiry and then to the Secretary of the department that controlled the Bureau of Immigration. [8]

Case

Kaoru Yamataya was a fifteen-year-old pregnant girl from Japan when she landed in Seattle on July 11, 1901. [9] [10] Four days after her arrival, immigration authorities arrested and detained Yamataya on the grounds that she had entered the country illegally and was likely to become a public charge. [9] The 1891 Immigration Act excluded any immigrant who was deemed likely to become a public charge. On July 26, 1901, a Board of Special Inquiry of three immigration officials convened to hear her case and found Yamataya deportable. [9] Yamatya appealed her deportation through the court and eventually, her case was heard by the US Supreme Court. While awaiting the outcome of her case, Yamataya had a baby boy who died of pneumonia two months later. In addition, the man who had accompanied her, Masataro Yamataya, was tried and found not guilty of bringing a woman into the country for immoral purposes. [10]

Argument

Yamataya's appeal, argued by Harold Preston, used three key arguments:

Decision

Justice Harlan gave the opinion of the court and dismissed Yamataya's appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the law although it had no explicit provisions for due process. The Court did not discuss whether the exclusion and deportation of a certain class of immigrants violated any constitutional rights. Justice Harlan wrote that an act of Congress "must be taken to be constitutional unless the contrary plainly and palpably appears." [11]

The Supreme Court also held that the appeals process under the law was constitutional. While the appeals process was not reviewable by the courts, the Court found that the immigration law still provided sufficient trial and appellate tribunals. It agreed with the government's assertion of administrative competency by holding that the investigations and actions of the executive offices in the deportation process were not "subject to judicial review." [12]

Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld Yamataya's deportation and ruled that the deportation hearings met Fifth Amendment due process rights, as the executive hearing was found to have been in front of immigration agents and to meet the standard of due process. [12] It was also held that even a hearing that an immigrant cannot understand was not a violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights. For Yamataya, even if the hearing was conducted in English and so she could not understand the proceedings against her, Harlan wrote that "was her misfortune, and constitutes no reason… for the intervention of the courts by habeas corpus." [13] However, the Supreme Court argued that if a person was deported without a hearing, Fifth Amendment due process would be violated and so it provided some ability to go through the courts.

Significance

While Yamataya was ordered to be deported back to Japan, the case significantly altered the appeals process for deportations in the United States. The ruling effectively created an appeals process in deportations under general immigration law. While immigrants could not challenge the outcome of deportation hearings in the courts and judicial system, they could challenge the legitimacy of the procedures. [14] If their procedural due process rights had been violated, immigrants were able to appeal their deportations in the courts. That was a significant shift in deportation appeals process, as individuals had an opportunity to appeal their deportation through the courts, which had been unavailable before the case.

For 50 years, the Supreme Court decisions would continue to use a procedural due process requirement but refuse to overturn government decisions in both exclusion and deportation contexts. [15] The courts remained reluctant to hear any substantive due process constitutional challenges to both the admission and deportation categories established by Congress. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chinese Exclusion Act</span> Act of US Congress in 1882 that prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers

The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law made exceptions for merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only major U.S. law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

<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.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the detention and release of unaccompanied minors.

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deportation and removal from the United States</span>

Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), 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. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.

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.

<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.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.

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.

References

  1. ↑ Howard L. Bens, "The Deportation of Aliens," University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 68, no. 2 (1920), 111.
  2. ↑ Alexander Aleinikoff, "Federal Regulation of Aliens and the Constitution," The American Journal of International Law 83, no. 4, 864.
  3. ↑ Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1637.
  4. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 12.1
  5. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 12.
  6. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 13.
  7. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 14.
  8. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 15.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 23.
  10. 1 2 Boba, Eleanor (July 3, 2018). "Supreme Court rules in the Japanese Immigrant Case, Yamataya v. Fisher, on April 6, 1903". HistoryLink.org. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
  11. ↑ Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 101 (1903).
  12. 1 2 Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 24.
  13. ↑ Yamataya, 189 U.S. at 102.
  14. ↑ Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 25.
  15. ↑ Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1638.
  16. ↑ Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1639.
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.