 De Lima v. Bidwell |
|
De Lima 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 newly acquired territory of Puerto Rico was a "foreign country" and to what extent shipping duties applied to imports from Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. De Lima ruled that Puerto Rico was a part of the United States and duties should not be applied to imports. This case was decided on different grounds than that of Downes v. Bidwell, which ruled that unincorporated territories could be treated differently than states and incorporated territories.
|
| Dorr v. United States |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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) |
|
Acts passed by the Virginia General Assembly reflected race-neutral language of the legal code after the Civil War. Application of these statutes resulted in entrenched Jim Crow segregation.
|
| Elective Franchise and Qualifications for Office (1902) |
|
Acts passed by the Virginia General Assembly reflected race-neutral language of the legal code after the Civil War. Application of these statutes resulted in entrenched Jim Crow segregation.
|
| Elk v. Wilkins |
|
In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court denied Native Americans United States citizenship.
|
| Ex Parte Crow Dog |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
The Expatriation Act was a federal law that rescinded United States citizenship for American women that married foreigners.
|
| Gonzales v. Williams |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung |
|
The habeas corpus petitions related to the Mee Lee Wah Village show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
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 |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century.
|
| In the matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Tom Sing show legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota show legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century
|