United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court conceded its right to judicial review over immigration matters. The case held that "a citizen of Chinese parentage seeking admission to the United States" could be excluded by the administrative immigration authorities, even when being denied a hearing before a judicial body on the question whether they were indeed a citizen. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation.
History
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for a period of ten years and restricted all Chinese immigrants from obtaining naturalized citizenship, while at the same time allowing "merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats" to be exempt from these exclusions. Chinese in the United States before the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was passed were able to return without impediment to the United States if they "obtained a certificate before their departure and could produce this document upon their return". In 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act which revoked the right of Chinese laborers to re-enter the United States after visiting China. The Scott Act was renewed with the passing of the Geary Act in 1892 which also "required all alien Chinese then residing in the United States to register" and those caught without their registration form on their person could potentially be arrested or deported. The combination of these acts increased the restrictions on and exclusion of Chinese and Chinese Americans. As a result the Chinese combatted discrimination and exclusion through the judicial system, often via petition of habeas corpus, and many Chinese found relief through the judicial system until the United States v. Ju Toy decision.
Ju Toy was a Chinese man who had been born in the United States and was not subject to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act nor the Scott Act of 1888. Ju Toy visited China and returned to San Francisco on the steamship Doric, but on his return Ju Toy was denied permission to land and was ordered to be deported by immigration officials even though he was not an immigrant. Ju Toy then sued out of a writ of habeas corpus from a Federal District Court. The Federal District Court ruled that Ju Toy was a person native to the United States and ordered his release. The Government appealed and the case was brought to the Supreme Court and heard for arguments on April 3, 1905.
Ruling
Justice Holmes delivered the majority opinion on May 8, 1905. The majority held that the petition for habeas corpus should have been denied because it alleged nothing except citizenship and since it "disclosed neither abuse of authority nor the existence of evidence not laid before the Secretary". The Supreme Court maintained that while the acts of Congress give no authority to exclude citizens, the acts grants administrative officials the power to determine finally whether or not a given person is a citizen. Holmes argued that even if Ju Toy was a native American, he could not get any relief from the Courts since the findings of the immigration officials were conclusive and not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process since due process can be given without a judicial trial for citizens applying for admission. Therefore Ju Toy could not obtain reprieve from the judicial system and was subject to be deported to China.
Dissenting opinion
Justice Brewer with Justice Peckham dissented. Justice Day also dissented. The dissent argued that Ju Toy had been judicially determined to be a "free-born American citizen" and has been guilty of no crime since returning to one's native land is not a crime for citizens. Brewer contested that allowing a citizen, guilty of no crime, to be deported without a trial by jury, and without judicial examination, strips him of all his rights which are given to a citizen.