Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Chae Chan Ping v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1889 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawImmigrationTreatiesFederal PowerAliensChinese Exclusionplenary powerimmigration

Facts

Earlier treaties with China, especially the supplemental treaty of 1880, had permitted the United States to regulate, limit, or suspend the coming of Chinese laborers, and Congress enacted statutes in 1882 and 1884 requiring certificates for certain departing Chinese laborers and providing that such certificates would entitle them to return. Chae Chan Ping was a Chinese laborer who had resided in the United States and departed with a certificate issued under those laws. While he was abroad, Congress passed the Act of October 1, 1888, declaring previously issued certificates void and making it unlawful for Chinese laborers who had departed and not returned before the act's passage to return or remain in the United States. He challenged that statute as violating treaties with China and rights vested under federal law.

Issue

Whether Congress could constitutionally bar the reentry of a Chinese laborer who had left the United States with a certificate authorizing his return, even though the 1888 statute conflicted with prior treaties and earlier federal statutes. More broadly, the question was whether the exclusion of aliens is within Congress's sovereign power and whether prior treaty-based permissions limited that power.

Rule

A treaty and a federal statute are of equal dignity as supreme law of the land, and when they conflict, the later expression of the sovereign will controls in domestic courts. The exclusion of aliens from the territory of the United States is an incident of national sovereignty vested in the political branches, and Congress may exercise that power whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require it. Permissions previously granted to aliens to enter or return are revocable at the will of the government unless they are vested property-type rights rather than personal, untransferable expectations.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The United States entered a treaty with Norland providing that Norland citizens could enter the country for agricultural work. Three years later, Congress enacted a statute barring entry of all Norland agricultural workers for five years. Lina Sorensen, a Norland citizen denied entry at Seattle, sues in federal court arguing the treaty controls.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that treaties and federal statutes are of equal dignity as supreme law, and when they conflict, the later expression of the sovereign will controls in domestic courts. Thus, even if the statute contravenes an earlier treaty, the court applies the later statute. The judiciary does not invalidate the statute on the ground that it conflicts with treaty promises.