United States v. Sing Tuck or King Do & Thirty-One’s Empirical Analysis
194 U.S. 161 · 1904
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 73 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 373 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably McKart v. United States (1969), Frank v. Mangum (1915)
106 federal appellate · 73 district · 50 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Pennoyer v. Neff · Royall · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al.
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 373 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The remedy of the appellant, was by appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury from the decision of his subordinate, and not to the courts. If the act of 1894 had done nothing more than appropriate money to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act, the courts would have been authorized to protect any right the appellant had to enter the country, If he was of the class entitled to admission under existing la.ws or treaties, and was improperly excluded. But when Congress went further, and declared that, in every case of an alien excluded by the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers ‘from admission into the United States under any law or treaty,’ such decision should he final, unless reversed by the Secretary of the Treasury, the authority of the courts to review the decision of the executive officers was taken away.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“points out a mode of procedure which must be followed before there can be a resort to the courts,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even though the fifth amendment does apply to one seeking entrance to this country, and to deny him admission may deprive him of liberty, due process of law does not necessarily require a judicial trial, and Congress may intrust the decision of his right to enter to an executive officer. Under the Chinese exclusion and the immigration laws, where a person of Chinese descent asks admission to the United States, claiming that he is a native-born citizen thereof, and the lawfully designated officers find that he is not, and upon appeal that finding is approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and it does not appear that there was any abuse of discretion, such finding and action of the executive officers should be treated by the courts as having been made by a competent tribunal, with due process of law, and as final and conclusive; and in habeas corpus proceedings, commenced thereafter, and based solely on the ground of the applicant’s alleged citizenship, the court should dismiss the writ, and not direct new and further evidence as to the question of citizenship. A person whose right to enter the United States is questioned under the immigration laws is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.””
2 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.