American Progressivism and the U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Chinese Exclusion Cases – the Origins of the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability

• Authors: Edyta Sokalska

Title variants

PL

Amerykański progresywizm i orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych: Chinese Exclusion Cases oraz geneza doktryny Consular Non-Reviewability

Abstracts

PL

Na przełomie XIX i XX w. ruchy reformatorskie w USA próbowały dopasować amerykańskie ideały do wyzwań czasu. Postępowe podejście podkreślało konieczność reform. Często podnoszona w dialogu publicznym kwestia chińska była przedmiotem rozważań Sądu Najwyższego, Kongresu i federalnej władzy wykonawczej. Chae Chan Ping v. United States i kolejne sprawy ustanowiły doktrynę consular non-reviewability odnoszącą się do prawa imigracyjnego i wyznaczającą zakres kontroli sądowej dla decyzji dotyczących przyjmowania imigrantów do Stanów Zjednoczonych. Wzmocniły one również doktrynę plenary power. Możemy postawić pytanie czy orzeczenia Sądu Najwyższego były zgodne z ideami amerykańskiego progresywizmu. Niestety, Chinese Exclusion Cases nie były kompatybilne z wizjami postępowych reformatorów i odzwierciedlały raczej antychińskie nastroje niż dążenie do reform.

EN

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.

Keywords

EN

constitutional law; jurisprudence; judicial review; the Supreme Court of the United States; the Progressive Movement; Chinese immigration

PL

orzecznictwo; prawo konstytucyjne; Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych; kontrola sądowa; ruch progresywny; chińska imigracja

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego
• Year: 2023
• Issue: 4(74)
• Pages: 325-339

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Edyta Sokalska

• Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie

• https://orcid.org/0000000309037726

References

• Beeby J.M., Ingrassia B.M., Precursors to Gilded Age and Progressive era Reforms [in:] A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, eds. C. McKnight Nichols, N.C. Unger, Malden-Oxford 2017.
• Calvi V.S., Coleman S., American Law and Legal Systems, Upper Saddle River 2009.
• Chin G.J., Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting: The origins of Plenary Power [in:] Immigration Stories, eds. D.A. Martin, P.H. Schuck, New York 2005.
• Dobkin D.S., Challenging the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability in Immigration Cases, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/conference/ilroundtable/ILR13_DIDonaldDobkinChallengingtheDoctrine.pdf.
• Edwards R., New Spirits: Americans in the “Gilded Age” 1865–1905, 2nd edn., Oxford– New York 2011.
• Edwards R., Politics, Social Movements, and the Periodization of U.S. History, “The Journal of Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2009, vol. 8, no. 4.
• Flanagan M.A., Decades of Upheaval and Reform [in:] A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, eds. C. McKnight Nichols, N.C. Unger, Malden-Oxford 2017.
• Górski G., Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych do 1930, Lublin 2006.
• Gould L.L., America in the Progressive Era, 1890–1914, London–New York 2013.
• Hester T., “Protection not Punishment”: Legislative and Judicial Formation of US Deportation Policy 1882–1904, “Journal of American Ethnic History” 2010, vol. 30, no. 1.
• Johnson K., Argument preview: The doctrine of consular non-reviewability – historical relic or good law?, https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-the-doctrine-of-consular-non-reviewability-historical-relic-or-good-law.
• Johnston R., Influential Works about the Gilded Age and Progressive Era [in:] A Companion to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, eds. C. McKnight Nichols, N.C. Unger, Malden-Oxford 2017.
• Keller M., Anglo-American Politics, 1900–1930, in Anglo-American Perspective: A Case Study in Comparative History, “Comparative Studies in Society and History” 1980, vol. 22, no. 3.
• Legomsky S.H., Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional Power, “The Supreme Court Review” 1984, vol. 1984(6).
• Lim E.T., The Anti-Federalist Strand in Progressive Politics and Political Thought, “Political Research Quarterly” 2013, vol. 66, no. 1, DOI: 10.1177/1065912911430668.
• Lim J., Immigration, Plenary Powers, and Sovereignty Talk: Then and Now, “The Journal of Gilded Age and Progressive Era” 2020, vol. 19(2), DOI:10.1017/S1537781419000641.
• Machaj Ł, Buck versus Bell czyli eugenika w sadzie Najwyższym Stanów Zjednoczonych, “Studia nad Faszyzmem i Zbrodniami Hitlerowskimi” 2009, vol. 31.
• Martin D.A., Why Immigrations’ Plenary Power Doctrine Endures, “Oklahoma Law Review” 2015, vol. 68, no. 1, Symposium: Chae Chan Ping v. United States: 125 Years of Immigration’s Plenary Power Doctrine.
• McClain Ch.J., In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America, Berkeley 1994.
• McNaught K., American Progressives and the Great Society, “The Journal of American History” 1966, vol. 53, no. 3.
• Neuman G.L., Jurisdiction and the Rule of Law after the 1996 Immigration Act, “Harvard Law Review” Jun. 2002, vol. 113, no. 8.
• Nugent W., Progressivism: A Very Short Introduction, New York 2010.
• Rehnquist W.H., The Supreme Court. Revisited and Updated, New York 2001.
• Romero V.C., Elusive Equality: Reflections on Justice Field’s Opinions in Chae Chan Ping and Fong Yue Ting, “Oklahoma Law Review” 2015, vol. 68(165).
• Rosenfield H.N., Consular Non-reviewability: A Case Study in Administrative Absolutism, “American Bar Association Journal” Dec. 1955, vol. 41, no. 12.
• Sanders E., Roots of Reforms: Farmers, Workers, and the American State 1877–1917, Chicago 1999.
• Sokalska E., Legal and Political Dimensions of American Federalism: Development and Interpretations, Olsztyn 2018.
• Sokalska E., The U.S. Supreme Court and the Establishment of the ‘Separate but Equal Doctrine’ [in:] Contemporary Problems of Human Rights Selected Aspects, eds. M. Mamiński, M. Rzewuski, Warszawa 2019.
• Sokalska E., The U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence and Reconsideration of Civil and States’ Rights (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka), “Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego” 2022, no. 4 (68), DOI 10.15804/ppk.2022.04.29.
• Sokalska E., Searching for Progress: Progressivism and the U.S. Supreme Court Jurisprudence (some remarks), “Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego” 2020, no. 5 (57), doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2020.05.33.
• Stromquist S., Reinventing “The People”: The Progressive Movement, the Class Problem, and the Origins of Modern Liberalism, Urbana–Chicago 2006.
• Villazor R.C., Chae Chan Ping v. United States: Immigration as Property, “Oklahoma Law Review” 2015, vol. 68.
• Wiebe R.H., The Search for Order, 1877–1929, New York 1967.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/ppk.2023.04.24

Biblioteka Nauki

18105012