The dark history of the Chinese Exclusion Act - Robert Chang
- 746,158 Views
- 2,242 Questions Answered
- TEDEd Animation
Upon arrival in New York, he was detained. A lawsuit on his behalf was filed quickly and he was ordered released by a federal judge. Though things worked out for him and his family, others subject to the executive order, including subsequent versions (Executive Order 13780 and Presidential Proclamation 9645), were not so lucky.
Though most lower courts found the executive orders to be illegal, the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, relied upon the plenary power doctrine, that had its roots in racism as exemplified in what happened to Chae Chan Ping, to uphold travel ban.
In upholding the travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored statements made by candidate and President Trump, that he intended to limit or stop Muslims from entering the country. The plenary power doctrine has been heavily criticized because it allows for the executive and legislature to engage in racial and ethnic animus. Yet the doctrine persists.
You can learn more about Darweesh and the legal challenges that culminated in Trump v. Hawaii in Robert S. Chang, Whitewashing Precedent: From the Chinese Exclusion Case to Korematsu to the Muslim Travel Ban Cases, 68 Case Western Reserve Law Review 1183 (2018).
Create and share a new lesson based on this one.