31:
372:
that an immigrant cannot understand was not a violation of their Fifth
Amendment due process rights. For Yamataya, even if the hearing was conducted in English and so she could not understand the proceedings against her, Harlan wrote that "was her misfortune, and constitutes no reason… for the intervention of the courts by habeas corpus." However, the Supreme Court argued that if a person was deported without a hearing, Fifth Amendment due process would be violated and so it provided some ability to go through the courts.
316:
July 26, 1901, a Board of
Special Inquiry of three immigration officials convened to hear her case and found Yamataya deportable. Yamatya appealed her deportation through the court and eventually, her case was heard by the US Supreme Court. While awaiting the outcome of her case, Yamataya had a baby boy who died of pneumonia two months later. In addition, the man who had accompanied her, Masataro Yamataya, was tried and found not guilty of bringing a woman into the country for immoral purposes.
381:
deportation hearings in the courts and judicial system, they could challenge the legitimacy of the procedures. If their procedural due process rights had been violated, immigrants were able to appeal their deportations in the courts. That was a significant shift in deportation appeals process, as individuals had an opportunity to appeal their deportation through the courts, which had been unavailable before the case.
649:
315:
on July 11, 1901. Four days after her arrival, immigration authorities arrested and detained
Yamataya on the grounds that she had entered the country illegally and was likely to become a public charge. The 1891 Immigration Act excluded any immigrant who was deemed likely to become a public charge. On
359:
gave the opinion of the court and dismissed
Yamataya's appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the law although it had no explicit provisions for due process. The Court did not discuss whether the exclusion and deportation of a certain class of immigrants violated any constitutional rights. Justice Harlan
274:
allowed for the exclusion and deportation of immigrants if they were immoral, criminal, mentally defective, or unable to support themselves. In 1891, Congress extended the federal government's power to deport immigrants by adding categories of excludable and deportable immigrants to include idiots,
371:
Additionally, the
Supreme Court upheld Yamataya's deportation and ruled that the deportation hearings met Fifth Amendment due process rights, as the executive hearing was found to have been in front of immigration agents and to meet the standard of due process. It was also held that even a hearing
380:
While
Yamataya was ordered to be deported back to Japan, the case significantly altered the appeals process for deportations in the United States. The ruling effectively created an appeals process in deportations under general immigration law. While immigrants could not challenge the outcome of
269:
which significantly expanded deportation under
Chinese exclusion by introducing a system of residence certificates for all laborers of Chinese descent. Laborer who did not have a certificate at a deportation hearing would be deported. The
363:
The
Supreme Court also held that the appeals process under the law was constitutional. While the appeals process was not reviewable by the courts, the Court found that the immigration law still provided sufficient trial and appellate
384:
For 50 years, the
Supreme Court decisions would continue to use a procedural due process requirement but refuse to overturn government decisions in both exclusion and deportation contexts. The courts remained reluctant to hear any
294:
General immigration deportations were heard before a Board of
Special Inquiry staffed by three immigration officers. Appeals went to a Board of Special Inquiry and then to the Secretary of the department that controlled the
342:
as the evidence against her was "garbled, incomplete, and in many respects misleading and untrue;" the hearing was conducted in English, which she did not speak, and she was investigated without her having access to a
368:. It agreed with the government's assertion of administrative competency by holding that the investigations and actions of the executive offices in the deportation process were not "subject to judicial review."
264:
restricted Chinese immigration to the United States but also provided for the deportation of Chinese immigrants who entered the United States in violation of the exclusion laws. In 1892, Congress passed the
110:
The courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair, but procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
735:
725:
745:
664:
573:
72:
473:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 12.1
616:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 25.
595:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 24.
531:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 23.
509:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 15.
500:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 14.
491:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 13.
482:
Torrie Hester, "Protection, Not Punishment: Legislative and Judicial formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882-1904," Journal of American Ethnic History 30, no. 1 (2010), 12.
750:
335:
634:
Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1639.
625:
Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1638.
464:
Hiroshi Motomura, "The Curious Evolution of Immigration Law: Procedural Surrogates for Substantive Constitutional Rights," Columbia Law Review 92, no. 7 (1992), 1637.
755:
402:
740:
730:
720:
296:
237:. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However,
230:
35:
653:
455:
Alexander Aleinikoff, "Federal Regulation of Aliens and the Constitution," The American Journal of International Law 83, no. 4, 864.
446:
Howard L. Bens, "The Deportation of Aliens," University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 68, no. 2 (1920), 111.
407:
331:
The appeals process for deportations went to the Secretary of Labor, whose decision was final and not reviewable in court.
360:
wrote that an act of Congress "must be taken to be constitutional unless the contrary plainly and palpably appears."
169:
233:
case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the
328:
Since the Immigration Act of 1891 "did not explicitly provide for due process," the act was unconstitutional.
386:
271:
234:
212:
97:
693:
675:
668:
577:
261:
153:
64:
356:
145:
133:
141:
422:
284:
242:
412:
157:
580:
546:"Supreme Court rules in the Japanese Immigrant Case, Yamataya v. Fisher, on April 6, 1903"
389:
constitutional challenges to both the admission and deportation categories established by
249:
125:
417:
177:
165:
684:
714:
344:
427:
291:
and political radicals to the list of both excludable and deportable immigrants.
67:
390:
339:
238:
648:
347:
or having a chance to show that she was not likely to become a public charge.
288:
266:
545:
365:
276:
287:. In 1903, Congress passed another general immigration act, which added
324:
Yamataya's appeal, argued by Harold Preston, used three key arguments:
312:
280:
79:
702:
308:
96:
Board of Special Inquiry found Yamataya to be in violation of the
279:, those likely to become a public charge, those convicted of a
30:
241:
procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the
194:
Harlan, joined by Fuller, Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day
248:
The case was the first time that the Supreme Court allowed
307:
Kaoru Yamataya was a fifteen-year-old pregnant girl from
736:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Fuller Court
726:
United States immigration and naturalization case law
206:
198:
190:
185:
114:
104:
92:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
283:or some other crime, and those suffering from
403:List of United States immigration legislation
225:, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the
8:
746:Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States
591:
589:
334:The immigration agents denied Yamataya her
527:
525:
523:
521:
519:
517:
515:
20:
751:United States civil due process case law
439:
539:
537:
18:1903 United States Supreme Court case
7:
756:Japanese-American culture in Seattle
252:of a procedural due process claim.
741:Deportation from the United States
231:Supreme Court of the United States
54:Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
731:United States Supreme Court cases
671:86 (1903) is available from:
647:
29:
100:and was subject to deportation.
721:1903 in United States case law
544:Boba, Eleanor (July 3, 2018).
1:
408:History of Japanese Americans
262:Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
772:
211:
119:
109:
28:
43:Argued February 24, 1903
387:substantive due process
272:Immigration Act of 1882
235:Immigration Act of 1891
227:Japanese Immigrant Case
213:Immigration Act of 1891
98:Immigration Act of 1891
297:Bureau of Immigration
275:the insane, paupers,
45:Decided April 6, 1903
170:Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
694:Library of Congress
311:when she landed in
285:contagious diseases
260:The passing of the
661:Yamataya v. Fisher
654:Yamataya v. Fisher
607:, 189 U.S. at 102.
570:Yamataya v. Fisher
423:Japanese in Hawaii
243:Due Process Clause
222:Yamataya v. Fisher
130:Associate Justices
78:23 S. Ct. 611; 47
24:Yamataya v. Fisher
652:Works related to
413:Japanese American
218:
217:
763:
707:
701:
698:
692:
689:
683:
680:
674:
651:
635:
632:
626:
623:
617:
614:
608:
602:
596:
593:
584:
567:
561:
560:
558:
556:
541:
532:
529:
510:
507:
501:
498:
492:
489:
483:
480:
474:
471:
465:
462:
456:
453:
447:
444:
158:Rufus W. Peckham
115:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
771:
770:
766:
765:
764:
762:
761:
760:
711:
710:
705:
699:
696:
690:
687:
681:
678:
672:
644:
639:
638:
633:
629:
624:
620:
615:
611:
603:
599:
594:
587:
568:
564:
554:
552:
550:HistoryLink.org
543:
542:
535:
530:
513:
508:
504:
499:
495:
490:
486:
481:
477:
472:
468:
463:
459:
454:
450:
445:
441:
436:
399:
378:
354:
336:Fifth Amendment
322:
305:
258:
250:judicial review
202:Brewer, Peckham
168:
156:
154:Edward D. White
144:
142:David J. Brewer
126:Melville Fuller
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
769:
767:
759:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
713:
712:
709:
708:
657:
643:
642:External links
640:
637:
636:
627:
618:
609:
597:
585:
562:
533:
511:
502:
493:
484:
475:
466:
457:
448:
438:
437:
435:
432:
431:
430:
425:
420:
418:Asian American
415:
410:
405:
398:
395:
377:
374:
357:Justice Harlan
353:
350:
349:
348:
332:
329:
321:
318:
304:
301:
257:
254:
216:
215:
209:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
188:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
178:William R. Day
166:Joseph McKenna
146:Henry B. Brown
134:John M. Harlan
131:
128:
123:
117:
116:
112:
111:
107:
106:
102:
101:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
768:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
718:
716:
704:
695:
686:
677:
676:CourtListener
670:
666:
662:
658:
656:at Wikisource
655:
650:
646:
645:
641:
631:
628:
622:
619:
613:
610:
606:
601:
598:
592:
590:
586:
582:
579:
575:
571:
566:
563:
551:
547:
540:
538:
534:
528:
526:
524:
522:
520:
518:
516:
512:
506:
503:
497:
494:
488:
485:
479:
476:
470:
467:
461:
458:
452:
449:
443:
440:
433:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
400:
396:
394:
392:
388:
382:
375:
373:
369:
367:
361:
358:
351:
346:
345:legal counsel
341:
337:
333:
330:
327:
326:
325:
319:
317:
314:
310:
302:
300:
298:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
268:
263:
255:
253:
251:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:Case opinions
184:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:Chief Justice
121:
120:
118:
113:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
660:
630:
621:
612:
604:
600:
583: (1903).
569:
565:
553:. Retrieved
549:
505:
496:
487:
478:
469:
460:
451:
442:
428:Yellow Peril
383:
379:
376:Significance
370:
362:
355:
323:
306:
293:
259:
247:
226:
221:
220:
219:
207:Laws applied
173:
161:
149:
137:
88:Case history
71:
53:
15:
340:due process
277:polygamists
239:deportation
715:Categories
703:OpenJurist
434:References
338:rights of
289:anarchists
256:Background
555:March 23,
366:tribunals
267:Geary Act
60:Citations
659:Text of
605:Yamataya
397:See also
391:Congress
352:Decision
320:Argument
191:Majority
581:86, 101
313:Seattle
229:, is a
199:Dissent
105:Holding
706:
700:
697:
691:
688:
685:Justia
682:
679:
673:
572:,
281:felony
176:
174:·
172:
164:
162:·
160:
152:
150:·
148:
140:
138:·
136:
80:L. Ed.
667:
576:
309:Japan
93:Prior
669:U.S.
578:U.S.
557:2023
303:Case
73:more
65:U.S.
63:189
665:189
574:189
82:721
717::
663:,
588:^
548:.
536:^
514:^
393:.
299:.
245:.
68:86
559:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.