Legal Opinion

In re Ah Chong

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California

Decided June 9, 1880PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Habeas Corpus.

1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, C. J.

Article 19 of the new constitution of California, headed “Chinese,” in addition to the provisions referred to in Parrott’s case, recently decided in this court, forbidding the employment of Chinese by any corporation, or on any state, county, municipal, or other public work, also contains th® following provision:

“Section 4. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared to be dangerous to the well-being of the state, and the legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. Asiatic ooolieism is a form of human slavery,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McCready v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1877

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Takahashi v. Fish & Game CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Ohio Ex Rel. Clarke v. DeckebachSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  3. Harper v. GallowaySupreme Court of Florida · 1909
  4. Takahashi v. Fish & Game CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. United States v. BalsaraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API