 Grover Cleveland Speech Regarding Chinese Immigrant Workers (1886) |
|
President Grover Cleveland's 1886 speech discusses the anti-Chinese violence at Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory. In it he argues that the United States is not responsible for this violence.
|
| 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 1917 |
|
The 1917 Immigration Act was a federal law that created the Asiatic barred zone, prohibiting immigration from Asian nations.
|
| 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 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.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1911) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Ham Hung Wah shows legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century. In this case, the twelve-year-old native-born son of Chinese immigrant parents was arrested and detained as "an alien Chinese person seeking unlawfully to land in the United States" after returning to America from China where he had been visiting his grandparents. To support his son's petition, Ham Hung Wah's father also submitted an affidavit from prominent white members of society testifying to the family's trustworthiness, membership in the Presbyterian Church, and adoption of the "habits of western civilization." The petition was eventually dismissed at the request of Wah's attorney. His fate is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this habeas case, a Japanese immigrant and his new wife were denied entry to the United States after visiting Japan. Kichitaro Kubota presented evidence of his employment and property-ownership to the court and condemned the prejudice that led to their exclusion. The judge found that Kubota and his wife were entitled to be admitted into the U.S. and ordered them released from detention.
|
| Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (1975) |
|
This act allowed 130,000 refugees from South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to enter the United States and allotted relocation aid and financial assistance.
|
| Jones Act (1920) |
|
The Jones Act established that all interstate shipping must be conducted on ships that are owned and operated by United States shipping. This act claims to protect national security, but it also makes shipping to U.S. territories and Hawaii more expensive than international shipping.
|
 Keeping Account (1885) |
|
This political cartoon, published in the wake of the Rock Springs Massacre that targeted Chinese laborers, depicted the practice of "indemnity," or compensation between nations in the wake of racial violence. The cartoon depicted Uncle Sam and the Emperor of China debating how and whether China would be compensated for the racial violence in Wyoming Territory.
|
| Korematsu v. United States (1944) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that war-time exclusion against Japanese-Americans was valid.
|
| Korematsu v. United States (1984) |
|
In this case, Korematsu challenged his 1942 conviction by filing a writ of coram nobis, which asserted that his original conviction was so flawed as to represent a grave injustice and should be reversed. The judge granted the writ, thereby voiding Korematsu's conviction.
|
| Loving v. Virginia (1967) |
|
In this landmark civil rights case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
| Lum Jung Luke and E. M. Allen v. C. E. Yingling and H. W. Applegate (1926) |
|
Lum Jung Luke and his business partner, E. M. Allen, applied for an injunction against Arkansas Attorney General H. W. Applegate and prosecutor C. E. Yingling, who had threatened to begin an escheat proceeding (the process of transferring assets to the state) against Lum due to his status as an alien ineligible for citizenship. Chancery Judge A. L. Hutchins ruled in Lum's favor, not only enjoining the attorney general, but also striking down the Alien Land Act of 1925 as "unconstitutional and void."
|
| Lum Jung Luke's Deed of Transfer (1926) |
|
This deed of transfer between Lum Jung Luke (spelled Luke Lum Jung) and the Harrison Lumber Company was filed while the Chancery Court decision on Arkansas' alien land law was still pending.
|
| Memorial of Chinese laborers resident at Rock Springs, Wyoming Territory (1885) |
|
Over five hundred Chinese survivors of the 1885 racial violence in Rock Springs petitioned Huang Sih Chuen, the Chinese consul at New York, providing testimony of the white-led massacre and detailing the circumstances through which they lost property. Survivors demanded bodily protection and property compensation, while invoking recent treaty stipulations between the U.S. and China
|
| Naturalization Act of 1870 |
|
The 1870 Naturalization Act extended paths to United States citizenship for people of African descent while excluding Chinese immigrants.
|
| Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008) |
|
This amendment to the Nebraska Constitution banned the use of affirmative action in the "operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." It was initiated as a ballot measure that was approved in 2008.
|
| Nebraska Vagrancy Law (1881) |
|
Vagrancy acts passed by the Nebraska state legislature reflected race-neutral legal language that was used to target the poor, people of color, and women.
|
| Nebraska Vagrancy Law (1929) |
|
Vagrancy acts passed by the Nebraska state legislature reflected race-neutral legal language that was used to target the poor, people of color, and women.
|
| Ozawa v. United States (1922) |
|
The Supreme Court found in Ozawa v. United States that Japanese immigrants were not eligible for naturalization, based on a contested category of whiteness. The case considered the meaning of "free white persons" from the 1906 Naturalization Act and whether factors like assimilability should be considered. While the court determined in Ozawa that the words "white person" were meant to indicate a person of the "caucasian race," the decision in U.S. v. Thind just months later stated that the word "caucasian" was meant to refer to the "common understanding" of race and not a scientific one.
|
| Page Act (1875) |
|
The Page Act was a federal law that profiled Chinese and other women immigrating from Asian countries as immoral, barring them from entering the United States.
|
| Perez v. Sharp (1948) |
|
In this case, a 4-3 majority of the Supreme Court of California ruled that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the 14th Amendment. It was the first of any state to strike down an anti-miscegenation law in the U.S, preceding Loving v. Virginia by almost 20 years.
|