 Expatriation Act (1907) |
|
The Expatriation Act was a federal law that rescinded United States citizenship for American women that married foreigners.
|
| Foraker Act (1900) |
|
The Foraker Act established the civil government of Puerto Rico, transitioning it away from martial rule. The Foraker Act established Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory, making it ineligible for statehood. This act did not allow residents of Puerto Rico to be United States Citizens.
|
| George Quander versus the Law (1897-1908) |
|
George Quander was the nephew of Felix Quander. Like his uncle, George had run-ins with Fairfax County officials, culminating in 1908, when he was shot and killed by a deputy sheriff serving a warrant. The Alexandria Gazette is unsympathetic in its coverage of George Quander's encounters with the court, its officers, and the racist white citizens of Fairfax County.
|
| 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.
|
| Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) |
|
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found that medical privacy was constitutionally protected regarding reproductive decisions. The Griswold decision helped set precedent for the decision in Roe v. Wade.
|
| 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.
|
| Hernandez v. Texas (1954) |
|
Hernandez v. Texas showed racial discrimination in all-white juries, reflected in Juan Crow segragation.
|
| 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 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 Standing Bear et al. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1879) |
|
Standing Bear's writ of habeas corpus showed implications for citizenship, land dispossession, and human rights.
|
| 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 Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1892) |
|
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.
|