 Dorr v. United States (1904) |
|
Dorr v. United States is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. The court in Dorr ruled that residents of the Philippines were not entitled to a trial by jury. The case of Balzac v. Porto Rico decided the same in Puerto Rico.
|
| Dow v. United States (1915) |
|
In Dow v. United States, the Court of Appeals ruled that people from Southwest Asia could be considered white and were eligible for citizenship. This decision came seven years before the Supreme Court ruled that migrants from Japan and India were not white enough to be eligible for citizenship.
|
| Downes v. Bidwell (1901) |
|
Downes v. Bidwell is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. This case considered whether the Constitution applied to territories, specifically Puerto Rico. It specifically considered the constitutionality of the Foraker Act which levied customs on exports from Puerto Rico. The Court ruled that the Constitution only fully applied to incorporated territories, while Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory.
|
| Elective Franchise and Qualifications for Office (1887) |
|
This act passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1887 places few restrictions on voting. Compare it to the act of 1902, which added literary and property ownership requirements meant to disenfranchise African Americans, resulting in entrenched Jim Crow segregation.
|
| Elective Franchise and Qualifications for Office (1902) |
|
This act passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1902 contains literary and property ownership requirements for potential voters in an attempt to disenfranchise African Americans. Compare it to the 1887 act which placed few restrictions on voting. Application of statutes such as this one resulted in entrenched Jim Crow segregation.
|
| Elk v. Wilkins (1884) |
|
In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court denied United States citizenship to Native Americans. Newspapers at the time identified John Elk as Winnebago, however, he had renounced his tribal allegiance and resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska. Elk brought his case before the court when he attempted to register to vote and was denied. He claimed birthright citizenship as defined by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard before both Circuit and District judges, and when they could not agree on a ruling, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that despite severing tribal ties and living amongst white citizens, Elk could not claim birthright citizenship.
|
| Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883) |
|
Ex Parte Crow Dog was a Supreme Court case that asserted the federal government's role in criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands. The Court held that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native peoples against one another on tribal land. The Court's decision in this case affirmed tribal sovereignty, leading to the passage of the Indian Major Crimes Act two years later, which brought certain crimes committed on tribal lands under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
|
| Executive Order 9066 - Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas (1942) |
|
This executive order by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a federal law that forcefully removed persons deemed a national security threat to relocation centers in the western United States. While the act did not include racialized language, it was created with the intent to target Japanese Americans.
|
| Expatriation Act (1907) |
|
The Expatriation Act was a federal law that rescinded United States citizenship for American women that married foreigners.
|
| Gonzales v. Williams (1903) |
|
Gonzales v. Williams is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. This case determined that while people from Puerto Rico were not citizens of the United States, they were also not "aliens." This case labelled those in unincorporated territories as U.S, nationals instead of citizens.
|
| Hawaii v. Mankichi (1903) |
|
Hawaii v. Mankichi is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. This case considered the extent to which the Constitution should apply to Hawaii and how the new territory's previous legal codes could be folded into the laws of the Territory of Hawaii.
|
| Hirabayashi v. United States (1943) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court held that curfews against minority groups were constitutional at a time of war against the country that group's ancestors originated from. After the Executive Order 9066 was issued in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were subject to curfews and other restrictions in addition to being removed to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi was convicted of violating the curfew. This was a companion case to Yasui v. United States, decided on the same day.
|
| Immigration Act of 1891 |
|
The Immigration Act of 1891 gave the Federal Government direct control over assessing and processing immigrants into the United States. It prohibited polygamists, people convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude," and people with certain diseases from entering the U.S. The act also created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department to regulate immigration.
|
| Immigration Act of 1917 |
|
The 1917 Immigration Act was a federal law that created the Asiatic barred zone, prohibiting immigration from Asian nations.
|
| Immigration Act of 1924 |
|
Also known as the Johnson–Reed Act, this federal law set quotas on the number of immigrants from every country outside Latin America and barred immigration from Asia entirely.
|
| In re Halladjian et al. (1909) |
|
In this case, a Massachusetts circuit court ruled that people from West Asia were so intermixed with Europeans that the Armenian plaintiffs should be considered white and admitted to U.S. citizenship.
|
| In the case of E. M. Hewlett (1886) |
|
In 1886, Felix Quander entered into a legal battle with Emanuel Molyneaux Hewlett, a prominent Black attorney in Washington, D.C., that was covered by several of the area's newspapers. Hewlett attempted to collect three cows and a horse from Quander as payment for legal fees, which Quander contested. After two trials, Hewlett was found not guilty of larceny. Two years later, a second dispute occurred between the two men when Quander located the previously taken horse. Hewlett, Quander, and two of Quander's sons were charged with disorderly conduct and fined $5 after an incident in front of the Police Court that was covered by the Evening Star.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Agnes Smith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1921) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Agnes Smith shows legal challenges on the part of women in the early twentieth century from carceral confinement. After she was committed to an institute for "feeble-minded youth," Agnes' parents attempted to regain custody of her. The court denied the writ, claiming that Agnes was a "fit and proper subject" for the institution.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Alice McKay for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Body of Mary McKay (1891) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Alice McKay shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a mother petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after placing one of her children with a charitable organization to receive medical care and custody of the child was eventually given to a married couple. Before a court order was made in the case, the mother abducted the child from the married couple's home. Custody of the child was awarded by the court to the married couple.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung (1898) |
|
In this case, three Chinese girls between the ages of 15 and 18 used habeas corpus to free themselves from the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company responsible for developing the Chinese Village for the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition in Omaha. The judge found that the girls were being kept for "immoral purposes" and were remanded to the custody of a missionary doctor who would make arrangements for their return to China. After this judgment, the company filed their own petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an attempt to re-establish custody of the girls, who, they argued, owed a contractual obligation to the corporation until the close of the exposition. In this second case, the judge released the girls into the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company so that they could fulfill their contracts.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Claus Hubbard for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1898) |
|
In this case, a prominent member of Omaha's 3rd Ward was arrested for vagrancy. To challenge his wrongful arrest, Claus Hubbard petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that he was targeted by police because of his activism in the community. Hubbard frequently provided legal advisement and bail to African Americans facing indiscriminate arrests. The court agreed, ordering his release and also admonishing the police for violating the constitutional liberties of citizens.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Gussie Burns for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this case, Gussie Burns was arrested for vagrancy, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail. After her sentencing, she was subjected to a physical examination and reportedly found to have venereal disease. As a result, she was sent to the Omaha Women's Detention Home for treatment. After being confined to the home for four months, Gussie petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that her 30 day sentence had long since passed, the disease she was alleged to have did not exist, and that officials would not release her until she consented to "an operation for the removal of certain tubes." A writ was granted, though the outcome of her case is unknown. Cases like Gussie's illustrate the legal sophistication of women in the face of attempts to subordinate them during the Progressive Era.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Yu Gum and Yu Hung for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, two sisters were detained in Seattle for being in the U.S. unlawfully. When they were set to be deported to British Columbia, the girls petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The outcome of their case is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Person of Nan Oy (1888) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Nan Oy shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, Nan Oy was arrested crossing the U.S. border to be with her husband, a U.S. citizen. She was ultimately deported.
|