 Habeas Corpus Act of 1842 |
|
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1842 acknowledged the right of foreign born individuals to use habeas corpus, giving immigrants the ability to challenge their deportation.
|
| 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.
|
| Immigration and Nationality Act (1965) |
|
The Immigration and Nationality Act amended the 1924 Immigration Act, functionally repealing the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. This act started the categorization of refugees, but continued the U.S. pattern of defining refugees by geography or politics, and not adopting United Nations terminology.
|
| 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 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.
|
| 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.
|
| 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 1790 |
|
The Naturalization Act of 1790 had important legal and political implications in the Early Republic. An emerging racial hierarchy was reflected in the determinations of who was allowed to become a citizen. The act specified that any free white person who had resided in the U.S. for two years could be admitted to become a citizen, provided they were a "person of good character" according to a court of law.
|
| Naturalization Act of 1798 |
|
This is one of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts were passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the U.S. They were highly controversial and contributed to the Federalist defeat in the election of 1800. The Naturalization Act increased the residency requirement for citizenship from 5 to 15 years and the notice time from 3 to 5 years. While passed with the aim of protecting national security, it also decreased the number of new citizens and voters who disagreed with the Federalists.
|
| Naturalization Act of 1870 |
|
The 1870 Naturalization Act extended paths to United States citizenship for people of African descent while excluding Chinese immigrants.
|
| 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.
|
| Proclamation 10903 - Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua (2025) |
|
This proclamation issued by President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to apprehend and remove suspected members of Tren de Aragua from within the U.S. The proclamation calls for the apprehension, restraint, and removal of Venezuelan citizens who are at least 14 years of age, within the U.S., and who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
|
| Proclamation 10948 - Enhancing National Security By Addressing Risks At Harvard University (2025) |
|
This presidential proclamation claims that because of an increase of criminal activity at Harvard University, and a failure of the University to comply with federal directives, international student visas will be revoked.
|
| Racial Violence at Rock Springs, Property Compensation, and "Indemnity" during Chinese Exclusion |
|
This teaching module investigates the legal concept of "indemnity" and property compensation in the wake of the Rock Springs Massacre, which targeted Chinese laborers in Wyoming Territory in 1885. When white miners attacked a Chinese labor community, Chinese survivors petitioned the New York consul and worked through diplomatic channels to demand redress. This module explores how the concept of "indemnity" relied on treaty obligations and was tied to property compensation during a moment when national legislation worked to further restrict Chinese immigration.
|
| Re: DEI Programs Are Lawful Under Federal Civil Rights Laws and Supreme Court Precedent (2025) |
|
This memorandum from law professors across the United States explains how diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are legally defensible, in spite of the January 21, 2025, Executive Order titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity."
|