 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.
|
| Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) |
|
This Supreme Court case upheld the decision in University of California v. Bakke that the narrow use of race in admissions decisions was permissible. This precedent was overturned by the Supreme Court in Harvard and UNC v. Students for Fair Admissions.
|
| Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) |
|
In Haaland v. Brackeen, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, ruling that states could not circumvent ICWA adoption protocol.
|
| 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.
|
| Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 |
|
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 expanded the authority of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. It was passed largely in response to the resistance to civil rights for Black Americans after the Civil War, and allowed suits to be removed from state courts to lower federal courts for trial, as well as allowed for petitions for a writ of habeas corpus from federal courts if rights under the U.S. Constitution or any law or treaty were being violated.
|
| 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.
|
| 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.
|
| Homestead Act (1862) |
|
The Homestead Act allowed any citizen or intended citizen to claim and settle 160 acres of federal land. In exchange for a filing fee and the completion of five years of continuous residence and cultivation of the land, settlers would receive ownership of the land. This act incited further westward expansion and dispossession of Native lands. Union Army scout Daniel Freeman filed the first land claim for a homestead in Gage County, Nebraska Territory.
|
| Hoyt v. Florida (1961) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether laws like that of Florida, which allowed women to be exempt from serving on juries unless they specifically registered to do so, were constitutional. Gwendolyn Hoyt alleged that because there were no women on her jury, she was not given a fair trial. The Court decided that because women were given an opportunity to register to be considered for jury duty, the law was constitutional.
|
| Hundley v. Gorewitz (1942) |
|
In this case, a federal court struck down a restrictive covenant in Washington, D.C., under the "change of neighborhood" doctrine which allowed a court to declare a restrictive covenant unenforceable if the neighborhood had changed to the point that the original purpose of the covenant had been defeated. In the Hundleys' case, NAACP lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston persuaded the court that the neighborhood was already becoming predominantly Black. These private agreements that prohibited the sale or rental of land to non-white individuals were intended to maintain residential segregation. Restrictive covenants were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).
|
| Hurd v. Hodge (1948) |
|
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants banning the purchase or occupation of property based on race by D.C. courts is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Hurd v. Hodge was decided alongside Shelley v. Kraemer, which held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits such restrictive covenants.
|
| Hyde Amendment (1976) |
|
The Hyde Amendment, first appearing as part of an appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, prevents federal funds from being spent on abortion care. Versions of the Hyde Amendment continue to be adopted by Congress each year, though exceptions have been added to allow for the termination of pregnancies that result from rape or incest or that endanger the life of the mother.
|
| Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 |
|
This act made significant changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which aimed to reduce undocumented immigration and enhance border security.
|
| 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 of 1952 |
|
Also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, this act of Congress retained the national origins quotas for controlling immigration, but granted immigration quotas to all countries and removed racial restrictions for naturalization.
|
| Immigration and Nationality Act of 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 Elizabeth Denison, James Denison, Scipio Denison, and Peter Denison, Jr. (1807) |
|
Elizabeth, James, Scipio, and Peter Denison Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus, seeking their freedom from Catherine Tucker based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. Their enslaver claimed ownership based on Jay's Treaty, which allowed settlers of this territory to hold property of any kind, including enslaved people. While the courts eventually decided in favor of Tucker, the Denisons escaped into Canada, taking advantage of a doctrine that there was no obligation to give up fugitives from a foreign jurisdiction. They eventually returned to Michigan Territory and lived as freedmen.
|
| In the Matter of Hannah and Biddy and their children on Petition for Habeas Corpus (1856) |
|
In the decision in this case, a California judge ruled that Biddy Mason and her three children, as well as a woman named Hannah and her nine children and grandchildren, were "free forever" after their enslaver brought them into the free state of California to reside.
|
| In the Matter of Julia alias Mary Ann on Habeas Corpus (1836) |
|
In 1834, Julia successfully filed a freedom suit in St. Louis. Two years later, her mother, having secured her own freedom, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Julia, claiming that she was still being held by her former enslavers. When Julia was presented to the court, the writ was discharged, the court "being satisfied that she is contented with her situation, and does not wish to exchange it."
|
| In the Matter of Ralph on Habeas Corpus (1839) |
|
Ralph was an enslaved Black man who made an agreement with his Missouri enslaver to purchase his freedom. In order to earn the sum, Ralph was permitted to move to Dubuque in order to work in the lead mines. When he failed to pay the money after several years, his enslaver came to Dubuque with the intention of taking Ralph back to Missouri. Ralph appeared before the Court on a writ of habeas corpus, where the Court found that as slavery was prohibited in Iowa Territory, he was entitled to his freedom. This case was the first case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
|