Appellant
United States
Appellee
Wong Kim Ark
Appellant's Claim
That the U.S. district court's affirmation of Wong's citizenship was in error.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Solicitor General Holmes Conrad, George D. Collins
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Thomas D. Riordan
Justices for the Court
David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, Horace Gray (writing for the Court), Rufus Wheeler Peckham, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
Melville Weston Fuller, John Marshall Harlan I (Joseph McKenna did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 March 1898
Decision
In favor of appellee Wong.
Significance
This was the first case in which the Court interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which all persons born in the United States are defined as citizens.
The Locked Golden Gate
In August of 1895, Wong Kim Ark returned to his native San Francisco from China aboard the steamship Coptic. When the ship docked, Wong was detained by customs officials who refused to accept his claim that he was an American citizen.
Anti-Chinese laws became a reality a decade before Wong's detention. Railroadowners, mining companies, and other industrial interests in western Americanstates had once welcomed the Chinese as a source of cheap labor. By the 1870s, the backlash from labor unions and non-Chinese workers unwilling to work for low wages pressured the U.S. government to restrict immigration from Asia.The United States and Chinese governments signed a treaty in 1880 agreeing that the United States could regulate but not prohibit the migration of Chinese to America. The signers of the Angell's Treaty did not foresee the energy with which anti-Chinese forces in the U.S. Congress would try to "regulate" Asians out of American life.
In 1880 and 1882, Congress passed a series of laws collectively known as theChinese Exclusion Acts. These laws suspended the entry of any Chinese laborers into the United States for 10 years and threatened heavy fines for any shipmaster convicted of landing Chinese illegally. Ten classes of Chinese were exempted from the law, including teachers, ministers, diplomats, students, andothers who were considered likely to return to their homeland. Significantly,Chinese born in the United States and their children were included among theten exempt classes.
In 1888, Congress contravened Angell's Treaty by passing The Scott Act, prohibiting Chinese laborers from entering the United States. The 1892 Geary Act forbade the use of writs of habeas corpus by any Chinese arrested whilein the United States, thus denying aliens the right to challenge deportationproceedings. The constitutionality of this law was upheld by the Supreme Court on 15 May 1893 in Fong Yue Teng v. United States.
A Successful Writ
Wong Kim Ark's demand for a writ of habeas corpus, however, was granted because of his contention that he was a United States citizen. He charged that the Collector of Customs of the Port of San Francisco and the manager ofthe steamship company had deprived him of his liberty without due process. The U.S. District Court for Northern California agreed that Wong's Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. His detention was ruled illegal and he wasreleased.
The U.S. government appealed the writ, implicitly challenging Wong's citizenship before the Supreme Court on 5 and 8 March 1897. Ironically, both sides accepted most of the basic facts of Wong's life. It was agreed that he had beenborn in San Francisco in 1873, while his Chinese parents were considered permanent residents of the city. He had visited China temporarily in 1890 and had returned to San Francisco with no difficulty in passing through customs. Itwas further agreed that since his birth, Wong had never had any other placeof residence except California nor had he ever claimed to be anything other than a United States citizen. Although his parents had returned to China in 1890, Wong worked in San Francisco, paid his taxes, and had never participatedin any criminal acts. Most significantly, the government's appeal conceded that the Chinese Exclusion Acts under which Wong had been detained should not apply to him if he was indeed a U.S. citizen.
A Question Of Birthright
The government claimed that Wong's parentage should determine his citizenship. Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time of his birth. Therefore, Wong was likewise a foreign subject. According to the appeal,Wong was also Chinese by reason of his "race, language, color and dress." Because he did not belong to any of the classes of Chinese allowed entry under immigration rules, he was technically considered to be a laborer and liable tothe terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
These arguments were no more successful in Washington D.C. than they had beenin San Francisco. The Court rejected the appeal on 28 March 1898, over a year after hearing the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Gray noted the Constitution's deep roots in English common law. By this tradition, all personsborn within England's domain could expect protection from the King, to whomthey were expected to owe their allegiance. Gray traced the lineage of this concept of determining citizenship by birthplace from its English origins to standard practice in the American states.
The Court found its strongest reason for affirming Wong's citizenship in theFourteenth Amendment. Ratified by Congress in 1868, the amendment was designed to grant the rights of citizenship to persons of African descent who had been slaves prior to the Civil War. To the majority, Section I of the amendmentwas unequivocal:
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, theCourt ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan dissented. Fuller considered citizenship to be a political concept, not a right defined by the Constitution. By treaty, both China and the United States had agreed that Chinese subjects couldnot become naturalized American citizens. Fuller cited both Chinese law--bywhich any Chinese rejecting status as an Imperial subject could be executed--and U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding restrictive immigration policies.If foreign and U.S. laws prevented alien parents from becoming American citizens, Fuller reasoned, the Fourteenth Amendment could not arbitrarily impose citizenship on their children.
Wong Kim Arks' victory was of great importance to millions of children born in the United States to immigrant parents. However, it was a minor victory forAsian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed indefinitely in 1904and was not repealed until 17 December 1943.
Related Cases
United States
Appellee
Wong Kim Ark
Appellant's Claim
That the U.S. district court's affirmation of Wong's citizenship was in error.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Solicitor General Holmes Conrad, George D. Collins
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Thomas D. Riordan
Justices for the Court
David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, Horace Gray (writing for the Court), Rufus Wheeler Peckham, George Shiras, Jr., Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
Melville Weston Fuller, John Marshall Harlan I (Joseph McKenna did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
28 March 1898
Decision
In favor of appellee Wong.
Significance
This was the first case in which the Court interpreted Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment, in which all persons born in the United States are defined as citizens.
The Locked Golden Gate
In August of 1895, Wong Kim Ark returned to his native San Francisco from China aboard the steamship Coptic. When the ship docked, Wong was detained by customs officials who refused to accept his claim that he was an American citizen.
Anti-Chinese laws became a reality a decade before Wong's detention. Railroadowners, mining companies, and other industrial interests in western Americanstates had once welcomed the Chinese as a source of cheap labor. By the 1870s, the backlash from labor unions and non-Chinese workers unwilling to work for low wages pressured the U.S. government to restrict immigration from Asia.The United States and Chinese governments signed a treaty in 1880 agreeing that the United States could regulate but not prohibit the migration of Chinese to America. The signers of the Angell's Treaty did not foresee the energy with which anti-Chinese forces in the U.S. Congress would try to "regulate" Asians out of American life.
In 1880 and 1882, Congress passed a series of laws collectively known as theChinese Exclusion Acts. These laws suspended the entry of any Chinese laborers into the United States for 10 years and threatened heavy fines for any shipmaster convicted of landing Chinese illegally. Ten classes of Chinese were exempted from the law, including teachers, ministers, diplomats, students, andothers who were considered likely to return to their homeland. Significantly,Chinese born in the United States and their children were included among theten exempt classes.
In 1888, Congress contravened Angell's Treaty by passing The Scott Act, prohibiting Chinese laborers from entering the United States. The 1892 Geary Act forbade the use of writs of habeas corpus by any Chinese arrested whilein the United States, thus denying aliens the right to challenge deportationproceedings. The constitutionality of this law was upheld by the Supreme Court on 15 May 1893 in Fong Yue Teng v. United States.
A Successful Writ
Wong Kim Ark's demand for a writ of habeas corpus, however, was granted because of his contention that he was a United States citizen. He charged that the Collector of Customs of the Port of San Francisco and the manager ofthe steamship company had deprived him of his liberty without due process. The U.S. District Court for Northern California agreed that Wong's Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. His detention was ruled illegal and he wasreleased.
The U.S. government appealed the writ, implicitly challenging Wong's citizenship before the Supreme Court on 5 and 8 March 1897. Ironically, both sides accepted most of the basic facts of Wong's life. It was agreed that he had beenborn in San Francisco in 1873, while his Chinese parents were considered permanent residents of the city. He had visited China temporarily in 1890 and had returned to San Francisco with no difficulty in passing through customs. Itwas further agreed that since his birth, Wong had never had any other placeof residence except California nor had he ever claimed to be anything other than a United States citizen. Although his parents had returned to China in 1890, Wong worked in San Francisco, paid his taxes, and had never participatedin any criminal acts. Most significantly, the government's appeal conceded that the Chinese Exclusion Acts under which Wong had been detained should not apply to him if he was indeed a U.S. citizen.
A Question Of Birthright
The government claimed that Wong's parentage should determine his citizenship. Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time of his birth. Therefore, Wong was likewise a foreign subject. According to the appeal,Wong was also Chinese by reason of his "race, language, color and dress." Because he did not belong to any of the classes of Chinese allowed entry under immigration rules, he was technically considered to be a laborer and liable tothe terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
These arguments were no more successful in Washington D.C. than they had beenin San Francisco. The Court rejected the appeal on 28 March 1898, over a year after hearing the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Gray noted the Constitution's deep roots in English common law. By this tradition, all personsborn within England's domain could expect protection from the King, to whomthey were expected to owe their allegiance. Gray traced the lineage of this concept of determining citizenship by birthplace from its English origins to standard practice in the American states.
The Court found its strongest reason for affirming Wong's citizenship in theFourteenth Amendment. Ratified by Congress in 1868, the amendment was designed to grant the rights of citizenship to persons of African descent who had been slaves prior to the Civil War. To the majority, Section I of the amendmentwas unequivocal:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside.
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, theCourt ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan dissented. Fuller considered citizenship to be a political concept, not a right defined by the Constitution. By treaty, both China and the United States had agreed that Chinese subjects couldnot become naturalized American citizens. Fuller cited both Chinese law--bywhich any Chinese rejecting status as an Imperial subject could be executed--and U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding restrictive immigration policies.If foreign and U.S. laws prevented alien parents from becoming American citizens, Fuller reasoned, the Fourteenth Amendment could not arbitrarily impose citizenship on their children.
Wong Kim Arks' victory was of great importance to millions of children born in the United States to immigrant parents. However, it was a minor victory forAsian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed indefinitely in 1904and was not repealed until 17 December 1943.
Related Cases
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
- Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1979).
User Comments Add a comment…