Nishimura Ekiu v. United States

1. There is a lot going on in Nishimura Ekiu, but probably the leading issues are (1) the ability of Congress to legislate on the subject of immigration; and (2) the ability of Congress to provide the Executive branch with unreviewable authority to determine whether specific aliens shall be admitted (or indeed are aliens).

2. Where does the Court find that Congress has the power to legislate not on the topic of naturalization but on the issue of entry into the country?

3. The executive officials appointed to make these decisions -- at least at the time of this opinion -- do not have life tenure or anything resembling it. Should there be habeas review of their decisions by members of the judiciary? Before you answer, think about judicial review of countless executive branch decisions that are made; is there anything special about immigration?
4. What if Ms. Ekiu claimed she were a citizen? Should that determination be left entirely to executive branch officials? What if she were claiming asylum (perhaps she had spoken out against the Emperor of Japan)?

Supreme Court of the United States

142 U.S. 651, 35 L. Ed. 1146, 12 S. Ct. 336, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 1999, SCDB 1891-092

No. 1393

1892-01-18

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.