Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875)

Chy Lung v. Freeman involved 22 Chinese women denied entry to San Francisco by state immigration officers who labeled them as likely prostitutes based on arbitrary judgments. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chy Lung, affirming that only the federal government has authority over immigration and foreign affairs.

In the landmark 1876 Supreme Court case Chy Lung v. Freeman, the Court ruled that the federal government, not the states, holds the power to regulate immigration and foreign relations, affirming the federal government’s authority in this area.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

The Court upheld a Virginia law allowing forced sterilization of people deemed “unfit” to reproduce, such as those with mental illness. The Court reasoned that protecting the public welfare justified sterilization and concluded that it did not violate the Constitution.

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. […] Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Japanese concentration camps. The Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, arguing that national security concerns justified the racial discrimination. It concluded that the government’s actions were constitutional during wartime.

United States v. Thind (1923)

The Court denied citizenship to an Indian immigrant, saying that even if he was scientifically “Caucasian,” he was not “white” under common understanding. It concluded that racial classification was based on public perception, not science.

The eligibility of this applicant for citizenship is based on the sole fact that he is of high caste Hindu stock, born in village Taragarh Talawa, Amritsar district, Punjab, one of the extreme north western districts of India, and classified by certain scientific authorities as of the Caucasian or Aryan race … In the Punjab and Rajputana, while the invaders seem to have met with more success in the effort to preserve their racial purity, intermarriages did occur producing an intermingling of the two and destroying to a greater or less degree the purity of the “Aryan” blood. The rules of caste, while calculated to prevent this intermixture, seem not to have been entirely successful … the given group cannot be properly assigned to any of the enumerated grand racial divisions. The type may have been so changed by intermixture of blood as to justify an intermediate classification. Something very like this has actually taken place in India. Thus, in Hindustan and Berar there was such an intermixture of the “Aryan” invader with the dark-skinned Dravidian.

Pace v. Alabama (1883)

The Court upheld laws banning interracial relationships, arguing that punishing both partners equally meant the law did not discriminate. It concluded that such laws did not violate equal protection.

Because Alabama law (Ala. Code 4189) prohibited “miscegenation”—marriage, cohabitation, and sexual relations between people of different races—it was illegal for Tony Pace and Mary Cox to marry. As a result, they were not married and did not live together. They spent time together near their homes in Clarke County, north of Mobile. Under Alabama law, they could not legally marry. Interracial sex within marriage was classified as a felony, while extramarital sex—such as adultery or fornication—was only a misdemeanor.

If any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years.

Decision later rejected by McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)

Two lawyers were disciplined for placing a newspaper ad offering routine legal services at fixed prices, which violated Arizona’s ban on lawyer advertising. The Supreme Court ruled that this ban violated the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. The Court reasoned that truthful advertising about legal services helps consumers make informed choices and is especially important for people who cannot afford expensive legal help. It concluded that states cannot completely ban lawyer advertising, though misleading or false ads can still be regulated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black, was arrested for sitting in a “whites-only” train car in Louisiana, violating the state’s segregation law. He argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, ruling that racial segregation was constitutional as long as the separate facilities were “equal.” This established the “separate but equal” doctrine, which legitimized racial segregation for over half a century. The decision was eventually overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which held that segregated schools were inherently unequal and unconstitutional.