Supreme Court and Immigration Law

In Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), the Supreme Court held that the federal government has the power to regulate immigration and that the courts have the authority to review the legality of immigration decisions.

In Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers to the United States.

In Wong Kim Ark v. United States (1898), the Supreme Court held that U.S.-born children of foreign parents are citizens of the United States, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, holding that the government's interest in national security outweighed the individual rights of Japanese Americans.

In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny undocumented immigrants access to public education, ruling that such a denial violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot detain immigrants indefinitely without a bond hearing, ruling that such a detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Flores v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot detain immigrant children in unlicensed facilities, ruling that such a detention violates the Flores Settlement Agreement.

In Reno v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot detain immigrant children for more than 20 days, ruling that such a detention violates the Flores Settlement Agreement.

In Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot detain immigrant children in adult jails, ruling that such a detention violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot deport immigrants who have been in the United States for more than 10 years, ruling that such a deportation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Pereira v. Sessions (2018), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot deport immigrants who have been granted asylum, ruling that such a deportation violates the Refugee Convention.

In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot deport immigrants who have been granted withholding of removal, ruling that such a deportation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot deport immigrants who have been granted protection under the Convention Against Torture, ruling that such a deportation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Nken v. Holder (2009), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot deport immigrants who have been granted temporary protected status, ruling that such a deportation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.