 Undesirable Aliens Act (1929) |
|
This act made unlawfully entering the U.S. a crime for the first time. Immigrants who did not cross the border through an official point of entry, where they had to pay a fee and submit to tests, could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, facing fines and up to a year's imprisonment. Returning to the U.S. after deportation was made a felony, punishable by $1,000 in fines and up to two years imprisonment. This law applied to all immigrants entering the U.S., but was intended to restrict immigration from Mexico.
|
| United States v. Cartozian (1925) |
|
In this case, the District Court of Oregon debated whether an Armenian immigrant was white enough to be naturalized. Just two years after the Supreme Court ruled that Ozawa, a Japanese man, and Thind, a South Asian man, were not white enough for naturalization, the Oregon court ruled that people from Asia Minor were close enough to European descent to be naturalized.
|
| United States v. Kagama (1886) |
|
This Supreme Court case asserted the federal government's role in criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands. The Court ruled that the Indian Major Crimes act was constitutional, therefore federal courts had jurisdiction to indict Native defendants for murder.
|
| United States v. Sandoval (1913) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pueblo people were Indians, repudiating the earlier United States v. Joseph decision which had held that they were not. The title to Pueblo lands was now seen as held by tribes instead of in fee simple, meaning that Congressional approval was needed in order to make land sales. This undermined the legitimacy of non-Indian land titles across New Mexico.
|
| United States v. Thind (1923) |
|
The Supreme Court found in U.S. v. Thind that Indian immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. Contradicting their 1922 ruling in Ozawa naming caucasian identity as a requirement for naturalization, as a South Asian immigrant, Thind was deemed ineligible for citizenship because, despite being racially caucasian, he did not appear white.
|
| United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) |
|
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court solidified the principle of birthright citizenship, affirming that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen.
|
| Webinar - From Back Alley to the Border: Criminal Abortion in the 20th Century U.S. (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine of California State University, San Bernardino, discusses U.S. constitutionalism and criminal abortion in the 20th century with Dr. William Thomas and his American Constitutional History class.
|
| Webinar - Latina/os and Criminal and Immigration Law Enforcement (2025) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Kevin R. Johnson of the University of California, Davis, discusses the history of criminal and immigration law enforcement of Latina/os in the U.S with Dr. Donna D. Anderson and her And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - The Insular Cases and Contested Citizenship (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Robert McGreevey of the College of New Jersey discusses the intersection of U.S. colonial power and migration with Dr. Jeannette Eileen Jones and her And Justice For All class.
|
| Webinar - Vanguard: Black Women and the Right to Vote (2024) |
|
In this webinar, Professor Martha S. Jones of Johns Hopkins University discusses Black women and the right to vote with Dr. William Thomas and his American Constitutional History class.
|
| Woman Suffrage in Territories (1883) |
|
This newspaper article discusses the women's suffrage act passed in Washington Territory. Washington was the third territory to grant women suffrage rights, although the Territorial Supreme Court later overturned the law.
|
| Wyoming Declaration of Rights (1889) |
|
The first article of the State of Wyoming's Constitution enumerates certain rights within the state. Wyoming Territory was the first government to grant women suffrage rights, and that right was preserved in the Declaration of Rights when organizing the state government.
|
| Yasui 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. Minoru Yasui was convicted of violating the curfew. This was a companion case to Hirabayashi v. United States, decided on the same day.
|