Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Wong Wing v. United States

Wong Wing v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 1, 2, 1896. ; May 18, 1896, Decided

No. 204.

Opinion

 [*229]   [***140]   [**978]  MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the thirteenth section of the act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015,  [****3]  25 Stat. 476, 479, it was provided as follows: ] "That any Chinese person, or person of Chinese descent, found unlawfully in the United States or its Territories, may be arrested upon a warrant issued upon a complaint under oath, filed by any party on behalf of the United States, by any justice,  [*230]  judge, or commissioner of any United States Court, returnable before any justice, judge or commissioner of a United States court, or before any United States court, and when convicted, upon a hearing, and found  [***141]  and adjudged to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States, such person shall be removed from the United States to the country whence he came."

The first section of the act of October 1, 1888, c. 1064, 25 Stat. 504, was in the following terms: ] "That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any Chinese laborer who shall at any time heretofore have been, or who may now or hereafter be, a resident within the United States, and who shall have departed, or shall depart therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage of this act, to return to, or remain in, the United States."

The validity of these acts was assailed [****4]  because they were alleged to be in conflict with existing treaties between the United States and China, and because to deport a Chinaman who had, under previous laws, a right to return to the United States, was a punishment which could not be inflicted except by judicial sentence.

But these contentions were overruled and the validity of the legislation sustained by this court in the case of Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581. In this case it was held, in an elaborate decision by Mr. Justice Field, that the act excluding Chinese laborers from the United States was a constitutional exercise of legislative power; that, so far as it conflicted with existing treaties between the United States and China, it operated to that extent to abrogate them as part of the municipal law of the United States; and that a right conferred upon a Chinese laborer, by a certificate issued in pursuance of previous laws, to return to the United States could be taken away by a subsequent act of Congress.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

163 U.S. 228 *; 16 S. Ct. 977 **; 41 L. Ed. 140 ***; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2260 ****

WONG WING v. UNITED STATES.

Prior History:  [****1]  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.

ON July 15, 1892, Wong Wing, Lee Poy, Lee Yon Tong and Chan Wah Dong were brought before John Graves, a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, by virtue of a warrant issued upon the complaint of T. E. McDonough, deputy collector of customs, upon a charge of being Chinese persons unlawfully within the United States and not entitled to remain within the same. The commissioner found that said persons were unlawfully within the United States and not entitled to remain within the same, and he adjudged that they be imprisoned at hard labor at and in the Detroit house of correction for a period of sixth days from and including the day of commitment, and that at the expiration on said time they be removed from the United States to China.

A writ of habeas corpus was sued out of the Circuit Court of the United States, directed to Joseph Nicholson, superintendent of the Detroit house of correction, alleging that said persons were by him unlawfully detained; the superintendent made a return setting up the action of the commissioner; and, after argument,  [****2]  the writ of habeas corpus was discharged, and the prisoners were remanded to the custody of said Nicholson, to serve out their original sentence. From this decision an appeal was taken to this court.

CORE TERMS

aliens, imprisonment, hard labor, deportation, arrested, unlawfully, provisions, convicted, proceedings, detention, expulsion, adjudged, lawfully, sentence, declare, treaty, house of correction, infamous punishment, infamous crime, habeas corpus, indictment, inflicted, territory, deprived, expel, due process of law, judicial trial, grand jury, one year, servitude

Criminal Law & Procedure, Search Warrants, Affirmations & Oaths, General Overview, Immigration Law, Deportation & Removal, Grounds for Deportation & Removal, Violations of Status, Inadmissibility at Entry, Judicial Proceedings, Judicial Review, Scope of Review, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Substantive Due Process, Scope, Accusatory Instruments, Indictments, Duties & Rights of Noncitizens, Legal Representation, Grand Jury Requirement, Equal Protection, National Origin & Race, Nature & Scope of Protection, Grand Juries, Right to Indictment by Grand Jury