Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| - Wong Wing v. United States (en)
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States. (en)
|
| foaf:name
| - (en)
- Wong Wing v. United States (en)
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Wikipage page ID
| |
| Wikipage revision ID
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
| Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
| sameAs
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| JoinMajority
| - Harlan, Gray, Brown, White, Peckham (en)
|
| ParallelCitations
| |
| USPage
| |
| USVol
| |
| ArgueYear
| |
| case
| - Wong Wing v. United States, (en)
|
| courtlistener
| |
| DecideDate
| |
| DecideYear
| |
| fullname
| - Wong Wing v. United States (en)
|
| justia
| |
| Litigants
| - Wong Wing v. United States (en)
|
| majority
| |
| source
| |
| text
| - We think it clear that detention, or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provisions for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens would be valid...Detention is not imprisonment in a legal sense. (en)
- 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. (en)
- That any Chinese person or person of Chinese descent convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor for a period of not exceeding one year and thereafter removed from the United States. (en)
- 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. (en)
|
| title
| - Geary Act of 1892 (en)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 235 (en)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 237 (en)
- Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. at 238 (en)
|
| loc
| |
| has abstract
| - Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States. The case began in 1892 when Wong Wing and three other Chinese nationals were arrested for unlawful presence in the United States, violating the Geary Act. A commissioner of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced the four men to 60 days imprisonment at hard labor, after which they would be deported to China. After the prisoners' petitions, for writs of habeas corpus were denied, the Supreme Court granted cert. In May 1896, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment, ruling that Wing's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the commissioner lacked jurisdiction to sentence Wing to imprisonment at hard labor. The circuit court shouldn't have denied Wing's habeas corpus petition because Wing was sentenced to a criminal punishment without a jury trial. Thus the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment. This case established that noncitizens subject to criminal proceedings are entitled to the same constitutional protections available to citizens. The Court held that the protections guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments extend to foreign nationals as well as American citizens. The ruling was issued on the same day as the Court upheld racial segregation laws in its infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision. (en)
|
| ArgueDateA
| |
| ArgueDateB
| |
| Concurrence/Dissent
| |
| cornell
| |
| googlescholar
| |
| NotParticipating
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)
![[cxml]](/fct/images/cxml_doc.png)
![[csv]](/fct/images/csv_doc.png)
![[text]](/fct/images/ntriples_doc.png)
![[turtle]](/fct/images/n3turtle_doc.png)
![[ld+json]](/fct/images/jsonld_doc.png)
![[rdf+json]](/fct/images/json_doc.png)
![[rdf+xml]](/fct/images/xml_doc.png)
![[atom+xml]](/fct/images/atom_doc.png)
![[html]](/fct/images/html_doc.png)