Ng Fung Ho v. White

Background

Five persons of the Chinese race, four of whom brought the petition, sought a court petition (habeas corpus) to challenge deportation warrants issued by the Immigration Commissioner under the General Immigration Act of February 5, 1917. Each had entered the United States before May 1, 1917. The warrants said they had gained admission by fraud and that they were Chinese laborers without certificates of residence in violation of the Chinese Exclusion laws. Lower courts mostly upheld the deportation orders and remanded the men to immigration custody.

Reasoning

The Court considered two issues in everyday terms: whether the 1917 law allowing deportation by executive order applied to people who entered before May 1, 1917, and whether residents who claim U.S. citizenship and produce supporting evidence must get a judicial trial rather than only an administrative decision. The Court concluded that being unlawfully in the country (unlawful remaining) is distinct from unlawful entry and upheld the deportation orders for Ng Fung Ho and his minor son because they were then unlawfully present. But for two other men, Gin Sang Get and Gin Sang Mo, who had been admitted and had certificates and who produced evidence supporting their citizenship claims, the Court held they must be given a judicial determination of that claim and sent those cases back to the district court for trial.

Real world impact

The ruling means immigration officials may deport Chinese residents found unlawfully remaining under the 1917 act even if they entered earlier, while residents who make a non-frivolous claim of U.S. citizenship are entitled to a court trial to decide their status. The Court emphasized that deportation can deprive people of liberty, property, and life, so judicial safeguards apply when citizenship is plausibly claimed.