Court
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decided
Judge
Me. Justice Shieab
Posture
Defendants convicted and sentenced by commissioner, habeas corpus denied by Circuit Court
Defendant (1)
Wong Wing
Mr. Frank H. Canfield, Mr. Frederick W. Fielding
v.
Plaintiff (1)
United States
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson
Other parties: Lee Poy — Co-defendant, Lee Ton Tong — Co-defendant, Chan Wah Dong — Co-defendant
Overview
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to proceed therein in accordance with this opinion, meaning the prisoners should be discharged from imprisonment at hard labor without prejudice to their detention for deportation.
Case summary
Wong Wing v. United States involved Chinese persons found unlawfully in Detroit in 1892. Under section 4 of the 1892 Chinese Exclusion Act, they were sentenced by a U.S. commissioner to 60 days hard labor followed by deportation, without indictment or jury trial. The Supreme Court held that while Congress has broad power to exclude or expel aliens through executive action, imprisonment at hard labor constitutes an infamous punishment that requires indictment by grand jury and trial by jury under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court distinguished between valid administrative detention for deportation purposes and unconstitutional criminal punishment without judicial process. The Circuit Court's denial of habeas corpus was reversed.
Abstract
Chinese persons found unlawfully present were sentenced by a U.S. commissioner to hard labor followed by deportation without indictment or jury trial under the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress may exclude or expel aliens through executive action, hard labor constitutes infamous punishment requiring Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections, distinguishing it from permissible administrative detention for deportation. The Circuit Court's denial of habeas corpus was reversed, directing discharge from hard labor imprisonment without prejudice to deportation detention.
Opinion of the court
Majority
opinionMe. Justice Shieab
opinionMe. Justice Shieab
- Congress has power to exclude/expel aliens through executive action
- Imprisonment at hard labor is infamous punishment requiring indictment and jury trial
- Distinction between administrative detention for deportation and criminal punishment
Concurring opinions
1Concurring Me. Justice Field
Jurisdiction
not challengedSubject matter
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan
Jurisdictional facts
- Appeal taken to Supreme Court from Circuit Court decision denying habeas corpus
Procedural posture
Posture at trial
Defendants convicted and sentenced by commissioner, habeas corpus denied by Circuit Court
Posture on appeal
Direct appeal from denial of habeas corpus
Preserved issues
- Constitutionality of section 4 of the act of May 5, 1892, providing imprisonment at hard labor without jury trial
Subsequent history
Petition for rehearing
not filed
Rehearing en banc
not filed
Petition for certiorari
not filed
Remand proceedings
Case remanded to Circuit Court to discharge prisoners from hard labor imprisonment
Legal categories
Criminal
Case record
Full case name
WONG WING v. UNITED STATES
Docket number
No. 204
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Trial court
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan
Trial court judge
Henry H. Swan
Decided
Opinion author
Me. Justice Shieab
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
Me. Justice ShieabMe. Justice FieldMe. Justice Beewee
Issues & holdings
1
Issues raised
1
reversed
2
Holdings
1
Whether section 4 of the act of May 5, 1892, which provides for imprisonment at hard labor for Chinese persons found unlawfully in the United States without a jury trial, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
reversed
Standard of review
de novo
Disposition rationale
Imprisonment at hard labor is an infamous punishment requiring indictment and jury trial under Fifth and Sixth Amendments
Preservation
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Validity of imprisonment at hard labor without jury trial for aliens
Congress cannot impose infamous punishment (imprisonment at hard labor) on aliens without providing for judicial trial with indictment and jury trial
Imprisonment at hard labor is an infamous punishment under Fifth and Sixth Amendments; while Congress has power to exclude or expel aliens through executive action, imposing criminal punishment requires judicial process
Majority with concurrence/dissentbinding precedent
Power to detain aliens pending deportation
Detention or temporary confinement as part of exclusion or expulsion is valid
Detention is necessary means to effectuate deportation and is not imprisonment in a legal sense
Unanimous on this pointbinding precedent
Error analysis
- Sentencing to imprisonment at hard labor without indictment or jury trial — constitutional · error foundNot applicable - error was structural · not harmless
Statutory interpretation
3Statute
Act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25, section 4
Question
Whether provision for imprisonment at hard labor without jury trial is constitutional
Court's reading
Statute unconstitutional as applied to impose infamous punishment without judicial trial
Canons applied
Constitutional avoidancePlain meaning
no legislative history
Statute
Act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476
Question
Authority to arrest and deport Chinese persons
Court's reading
Valid exercise of congressional power over immigration
no legislative history
Statute
Act of October 1, 1888, c. 1064, 25 Stat. 504
Question
Exclusion of Chinese laborers
Court's reading
Constitutional exercise of legislative power
no legislative history
Burden of proof
Prosecution burden
Beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal punishment
Burden met
false
Standards of review
- Constitutionality of statute providing imprisonment at hard labor without jury trial — de novo Constitutional issues reviewed de novo
Timeline
Procedural path
Defendants chargedCommissioner sentencesHabeas hearingWrit dischargedOral argumentsSupreme Court reverses
4
Events
1,403
Days, incident to ruling
—
Span
procedural eventcited in opinion
Wong Wing, Lee Poy, Lee Ton Tong, and Chan Wah Dong brought before Commissioner John Graves on charge of being Chinese persons unlawfully within the United States
Outcome: Commissioner found defendants unlawfully present and sentenced to 60 days hard labor plus deportation
Initial adjudication leading to constitutional challenge
1
hearingcited in opinion
Habeas corpus hearing before Circuit Court Judge Henry H. Swan
Outcome: Writ discharged, prisoners remanded to custody
Trial court upheld commissioner's sentence
1
hearingcited in opinion
Oral arguments before Supreme Court
Outcome: Case submitted for decision
Appellate review of constitutional issue
1
rulingcited in opinion
Supreme Court issues decision reversing Circuit Court
Outcome: Judgment reversed and cause remanded
Final disposition establishing constitutional principle
1
Facts & evidence
Incident
Date
Location
Detroit, Eastern District of Michigan
Key facts
4 facts- Wong Wing and three other Chinese persons were found in Detroit in July 1892
- They were arrested on complaint of deputy collector of customs for being unlawfully within the United States
- A U.S. commissioner found them unlawfully present and sentenced them to 60 days hard labor in Detroit house of correction, followed by deportation to China
- Habeas corpus was denied by Circuit Court, leading to this appeal
Disputed questions
- Whether defendants were lawfully or unlawfully present in the United States
Procedural history
5 steps- July 15, 1892: Defendants brought before Commissioner John Graves
- Commissioner found defendants unlawfully present and sentenced to 60 days hard labor plus deportation
- Writ of habeas corpus filed in Circuit Court
- Circuit Court (Judge Swan) discharged writ and remanded prisoners
- Appeal taken to Supreme Court
Evidence in the record
Testimonial
- Complaint by deputy collector of customs
Documentary
- Certificate of residence (referenced in statute)
- Commitment issued by commissioner
Jury
Jury selection issues
No jury trial was provided
Verdict
No jury verdict - case decided by commissioner
Sentencing
Sentence imposed
60 days imprisonment at hard labor in Detroit house of correction, followed by deportation to China
Sentence type
mandatory
Sentencing date
1892-07-15
Sentence challenged on appeal
true
Special conditions
- Deportation after imprisonment
Sentencing issues
- Constitutionality of imprisonment at hard labor without jury trial
Objects of relevance
Detroit house of correctionCertificate of residence (referenced in statute)
Policy considerations
- Balance between national sovereignty over immigration and constitutional protections for all persons
- Separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches
- Protection against cruel and unusual punishment
Authorities
Cited authorities (6)
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581
followedprecedentCited as precedent upholding congressional power to exclude Chinese laborers
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698
followedprecedentCited as precedent upholding deportation authority through executive officers
Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538
followedprecedentCited as precedent upholding finality of immigration officer decisions
Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417
appliedquotedprecedentCited as defining infamous punishment requiring indictment
Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348
appliedprecedentCited as reinforcing requirement of indictment for infamous crimes
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356
appliedquotedprecedentCited as establishing equal protection for aliens under Fourteenth Amendment, applied to Fifth and Sixth Amendments
Related cases (6)
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581
prior appealUpheld exclusion of Chinese laborers
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698
prior appealUpheld deportation authority
Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538
prior appealUpheld finality of immigration officer decisions
Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417
precedentDefined infamous punishment
Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348
precedentReinforced requirement of indictment for infamous crimes
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356
precedentEstablished equal protection for aliens
Statutes
- Act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25 (Chinese Exclusion Act)
- Act of September 13, 1888, c. 1015, 25 Stat. 476
- Act of October 1, 1888, c. 1064, 25 Stat. 504
- Act of August 18, 1894, c. 301, 28 Stat. 372
Standards & doctrines
- De novo review of constitutional issues
- Political question doctrine in immigration (referenced in prior cases)
Legal principles applied
- Fifth Amendment requires indictment for infamous crimes
- Sixth Amendment guarantees jury trial in criminal prosecutions
- All persons within U.S. jurisdiction entitled to constitutional protections
Notable quotes
“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.”majority — Majority opinion distinguishing between deportation and criminal punishmentCore holding establishing constitutional limit on immigration enforcement
“It is not consistent with the theory of our government that the legislature should, after having defined an offence as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjudge the punishment by one of its own agents.”majority — Majority opinion explaining separation of powersEmphasizes judicial role in criminal punishment
“The term 'person,' used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic.”concurrence — Concurring opinion arguing for equal protection of aliensExpansive view of constitutional protections
Index terms98
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal procedures
Legal remedies
Legal evidence
Legal arguments
Legal defenses
Legal penalties
Legal procedural steps
Geo locations
Judges
Attorneys
Procedural terms
Substantive offenses
Entities and documentation
Legal actions
Action type
reversed and remanded
Target
Circuit Court judgment denying habeas corpus
Appealed from
Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan
Context
Supreme Court reversed Circuit Court decision and remanded with directions to discharge prisoners from hard labor imprisonment
Scope
full
Further instructions
Discharge prisoners from imprisonment at hard labor without prejudice to detention for deportation
Disposition vote
Majority with concurrence
Search facets
Parties
Judges
BeeweeFieldShieab
Courts
Locations
Statutes cited
Practice areas
Other index terms