Wong Wing v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1896 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawImmigrationDue ProcessJury TrialChinese Exclusion Actsalien exclusiondeportationexecutive enforcement

Facts

Under section 4 of the Act of May 5, 1892, a Chinese person found not lawfully entitled to remain in the United States could be imprisoned at hard labor for up to one year and then removed. The appellants were sentenced by a commissioner to sixty days' imprisonment at hard labor in the Detroit house of correction, followed by deportation. They had not been proceeded against by grand jury indictment or tried by a jury. They challenged the imprisonment as unconstitutional, while not disputing that detention for deportation itself could be authorized.

Issue

May Congress authorize a justice, judge, or commissioner to summarily sentence an alien unlawfully in the United States to imprisonment at hard labor, without indictment and jury trial, as part of the immigration enforcement process? More specifically, is section 4 of the Act of May 5, 1892 valid insofar as it imposes imprisonment at hard labor before deportation?

Rule

Congress has broad power to exclude or expel aliens and may entrust identification, arrest, detention pending inquiry, and deportation to executive or subordinate officers. But when Congress subjects aliens to infamous punishment, such as imprisonment at hard labor, the punishment cannot be imposed summarily; guilt must first be established through a judicial trial consistent with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, including indictment for an infamous crime and trial by jury.

🔒

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 creates a statute allowing officers of the fictional Federal Border Review Service to arrest any foreign national found unlawfully in Phoenix, hold that person for up to 10 days while verifying identity, and then remove the person from the United States if an agency hearing officer confirms unlawful presence. The statute does not authorize hard labor, fines, or any term of punishment beyond detention needed to carry out removal.

If challenged under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. The majority distinguished temporary confinement necessary to make exclusion or expulsion effective from criminal imprisonment. Congress may entrust identification, arrest, detention pending inquiry, and deportation to executive or subordinate officials. Because the statute here authorizes only detention incident to removal and no infamous punishment, indictment and jury trial are not constitutionally required.