Wong Wing v. United States

John Graves ruled that these people be imprisoned in the Detroit House of Correction for 60 days of hard labor from and including the date of commitment; in the end, they were to be removed from the United States to China.In a majority opinion by Justice Shiras, the Court explained that Congress has the power to exclude, deport, and detain classes of noncitizens as a matter of public policy.Mr. Justice Harlan, expressing the opinion of the Court, said that Congress exercised its power to exclude aliens solely through the executive, without judicial intervention, as determined by our previous decisions.The current question was whether a Chinese person can be lawfully convicted and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a definite period by a commissioner without indictment or trial by jury.To this regard, the Court expressed: But when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, we think such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.The Court then cited Ex Parte Wilson (114 U.S. 428)[4] to declare that incarceration at hard labor is considered an infamous punishment.Applying this reasoning to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.The Court finally decided that Section 4 of the 1892 Act was invalid because it conflicted with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," and is also in conflict with the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides" in all criminal proceedings, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."Justice Field agreed that Wong was entitled to be discharged from his arrest and imprisonment because the government could only lawfully punish both citizens and noncitizens after a jury trial.However, he expressed deep concern about the government's argument that constitutional protections do not apply to political offenses committed by those who illegally enter and remain in the United States.
Supreme Court of the United StatesL. Ed.U.S. LEXISMelville FullerStephen J. FieldJohn M. HarlanHorace GrayDavid J. BrewerHenry B. BrownGeorge Shiras Jr.Edward D. WhiteRufus W. PeckhamUnited States Supreme CourtSixth AmendmentsGeary ActPlessy v. FergusonChinese Exclusion ActDetroit House of CorrectionChae Chan Ping v. United StatesFong Yue Ting v. United StatesYick Wo v. HopkinsUnited States Fifth Amendmentcriminal procedureGrand JuryHurtado v. CaliforniaEx parte BainMaxwell v. DowUnited States v. MorelandBeck v. WashingtonUnited States v. CottonDouble Jeopardy ClauseBlockburger v. United StatesGrady v. CorbinUnited States v. FelixUnited States v. DixonUnited States v. RandenbushBurton v. United StatesFong Foo v. United StatesAshe v. SwensonBurks v. United StatesEvans v. MichiganBravo-Fernandez v. United StatesMcElrath v. GeorgiaUnited States v. WilsonLudwig v. MassachusettsSmith v. United StatesUnited States v. PerezUnited States v. JornUnited States v. DinitzOregon v. KennedyBlueford v. ArkansasBartkus v. IllinoisWaller v. FloridaUnited States v. WheelerHeath v. AlabamaUnited States v. LaraPuerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleGamble v. United StatesDenezpi v. United StatesEx parte BigelowPalko v. ConnecticutLouisiana ex rel. Francis v. ResweberBaxstrom v. HeroldNorth Carolina v. PearceBenton v. MarylandSelf-Incrimination ClauseUnited States v. SullivanGriffin v. CaliforniaMiranda v. ArizonaWilliams v. FloridaEdwards v. ArizonaOregon v. ElstadIllinois v. PerkinsMcNeil v. WisconsinMitchell v. United StatesUnited States v. HubbellDickerson v. United StatesChavez v. MartinezYarborough v. AlvaradoMissouri v. SeibertUnited States v. PataneFlorida v. PowellMaryland v. ShatzerBerghuis v. ThompkinsJ. D. B. v. North CarolinaBobby v. DixonHowes v. FieldsSalinas v. TexasVega v. Tekoh