Lem Moon Sing v. United States
| Lem Moon Sing v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 18, 1895 Decided May 27, 1895 | |
| Full case name | Lem Moon Sing v. United States |
| Citations | 158 U.S. 538 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The provisions of Sundry Civil Service Appropriations Act, 1895, further tightening the finality of admission decisions are valid. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Brown, Field, Fuller, Gray, Shiras, White |
| Dissent | Brewer |
Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court decision about the finality of administrative decisions concerning admission of foreigners to the United States, which built upon Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), and strengthened the doctrine of administrative finality in United States immigration and nationality law announced in the Nishimura Ekiu case.
Background
Lem Moon Sing was a Chinese immigrant who worked in the United States as a merchant. He conducted his work and had permanent domicile in San Francisco.[1] On January 30th, 1894, Sing began a year-long visit to China. During his absence, Congress passed as a rider to the Sundry Civil Service Appropriations Act, 1895, under appropriations related to immigration enforcement, provisions which strengthened the administrative finality first declared under section 8 of the Immigration Act of 1891.[1] Upon Sing's return to the United States on November 3rd, 1894, he applied to be readmitted and had complications doing so. He explained that he was a merchant in the United States and he had two non-Chinese individuals testify on his behalf. His name did not show up with the firm that he was a part of,[2] resulting in his application to re-enter being denied and then him being detained.[1]
Opinion of the court
Lim Lung testified as a petitioner to the court on behalf of Sing. He argued that Sing's detention and consequential deportation would be detrimental to his company. He also argued that Sing was not inadmissible and that the customs officer, John Wise, did not have authority to detain Sing pending deportation.[3] It was also argued that the detention and deportation of Sing would violate prior treaties between the United States and China.
In an 8-1 opinion delivered May 27, 1895, Justice John Marshall Harlan, relying primarily upon Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889) and Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), held that the provisions of the Sundry Civil Service Appropriations Act, 1895, were constitutional and that the immigration and customs officials had the "exclusive authority to determine whether a particular alien seeking admission into the country... a class forbidden to enter the United States."[1] This decision furthered the doctrine of administrative finality set forth in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892).[4]: 128
References
- ^ a b c d Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895).
- ^ McClain, Charles J. (1994). In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America. University of California Press. p. 216. ISBN 0520205146.
- ^ Salyer, Lucy E. (2000). Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law. University of North Carolina Press. p. 98. ISBN 0807822183.
- ^ Kanstroom, Dan (2010). Deportation Nation: Outsiders in American History. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674024724.
External links
- Text of Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.