Wong Wing v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
163 U.S. 228 · 1896
Citation profile
297 federal appellate · 151 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 951 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), United States v. Salerno (1987)
297 federal appellate · 151 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 17 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Wilson · Chae Chan Ping v. United States · Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Taggart
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 951 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e 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”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We regard it as settled by our previous decisions that the United States can, as a matter of public policy, by congressional enactment, forbid aliens or classes of aliens from coming within their borders, and expel aliens or classes of aliens from their territory, and can, in order to make effectual such decree of exclusion or expulsion, devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting the persons included in such decree, and causing- their deportation upon executive or subordinate officials. 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. No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to bo an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation, unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. It is not consistent with the theory of our government that the legislature should, after having defined an offense as an in”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.