Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Fong Yue Ting v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1893 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawImmigrationDue ProcessFederal Power over AliensdeportationChinese Exclusionalienssovereignty

Facts

Congress in the Act of May 5, 1892 continued prior Chinese exclusion laws and required Chinese laborers entitled to remain in the United States to apply within one year for certificates of residence. Section 6 provided that a laborer found without such a certificate could be arrested and taken before a United States judge, who was to order deportation unless the laborer clearly established unavoidable cause for not procuring the certificate and proved by at least one credible white witness that he was a resident at the time of the act's passage. In one case the petitioner had not applied for a certificate and sought habeas relief after arrest; in another he had not applied and was ordered deported by a district judge; in the third he had applied but was refused a certificate because he produced only Chinese witnesses and was later ordered deported for lack of the required proof before the judge.

Issue

Whether sections 6 and 7 of the Act of May 5, 1892, requiring registration and authorizing deportation of Chinese laborers found without certificates of residence unless they satisfy specified proof requirements, were consistent with the Constitution. More specifically, the Court considered whether Congress could impose those evidentiary and procedural requirements and treat deportation as a noncriminal removal rather than punishment.

Rule

The power to exclude or expel aliens is an inherent incident of national sovereignty vested in the political departments of the United States and may be exercised by Congress directly or through executive officers, with only such judicial involvement as Congress authorizes or the Constitution requires. Congress may require registration and identification of aliens permitted to remain, make the absence of prescribed documentation prima facie evidence that the alien is not entitled to remain, place on the alien the burden of rebutting that presumption, and prescribe the kind and effect of evidence to be received. A deportation order entered under such a scheme is not punishment for crime, but a civil method of enforcing the conditions under which the alien may remain in the country.

🔒

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.

Congress enacts a statute requiring all noncitizen dockworkers from a designated foreign nation who were lawfully living in the United States on the statute's effective date to register within 12 months and obtain a residence card at no charge from regional revenue officers. The statute authorizes federal marshals to arrest any such worker later found without the card and bring him before a federal judge, who must order removal unless the worker proves unavoidable cause for not obtaining the card and proves prior residence in the manner Congress specified.

Which is the strongest argument that the statute is constitutional under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that the national government possesses an inherent sovereign power, vested in the political branches, to exclude or expel aliens, and that Congress may permit aliens to remain on conditions it prescribes. It specifically upheld a registration-and-identification system backed by arrest and deportation when an alien fails to comply. The other choices misstate the opinion: resident aliens do retain constitutional protections generally; deportation was not treated as criminal punishment; and the power is national, not dependent on state consent.