On the same day, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Takuji Yamashita v. Hinkle.[2] Within three months, Justice Sutherland authored a similarly unfavorable ruling in a Supreme Court case concerning the petition for naturalization of a Sikh immigrant from the Punjab region in British India, who identified himself as "a high caste Hindu of full Indian blood" in his petition, United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. The upshot of this ruling was that like the Japanese, "high-caste Hindus, of full Indian blood" were not "free white persons" and were racially ineligible for naturalized citizenship. To support this conclusion, Justice Sutherland reiterated Ozawa's holding that the words "white person" in the naturalization act were "synonymous
Holding: (Vote: unanimous jury) Yes, The Court ruled that the damages incurred in the trial were actually subject to the statutory cap that is contained in the MLIIA. This reversed the initial judgment that of a trial court that was dated August 30, 2002 before it repealed th...
Brennan (Majority Decision): Justice Brennan read the decision which stated that the ruling from the previous court was not consistent with decisions from other courts regarding the same types of cases (Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 1986).
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923, the United States was attempting to revoke Bhagat Singh Thind’s naturalization of citizenship. In which Thind filed for naturalization under the Naturalization of 1906, that only granted “free white persons” and person of “African descent” to become citizens. The case was taken to the United States of the Supreme Court, in which Thind argued that he was indeed white because his people was part of the Aryan race and that he was a “high caste Hindu, of full blood Indian”, therefore making him part of the caucasian race.
Since 1790, the United States started to granted limited naturalization to immigrants of free white persons through the Naturalization Act of 1790 and established racial qualification to national citizenships. Immigrants regardless of who they were need to prove that they were of white race. This lead to the moment when defining who was white was through either scientific method or common knowledge. Into the early 19th and late 20th century, there were numerous of terms to include whiteness and non-racial qualification for immigration to the United States. As immigrants try to show how they were white, there were court cases, Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922) and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), which
In the early 1830's, Mexican-Indians, seeking a better life in the "land of opportunity," crossed the border into America only to find themselves and all who followed forced to assimilate to a new culture. The white Americans pushed their food, their beliefs, their clothing style, and the English language upon these immigrants. Some of the seemingly brainwashed Mexican-Indians saw the American actions as signs of kindness and acceptance. Yet, fearful others considered being caught by the strict American border patrol a "fate worse than death" (490). Immigration officers warned "foreign-looking" people to carry citizenship identification at all times, and they "sneaked up on innocent dark-skinned people, and deported them," possibly also "mak[ing them] suffer unspeakable mortifications" (484, 486). Those legally able to reach America became subjected to American ideals and customs. The whites relocated those unwilling to live the "accepted American lifestyle" to specified areas. Aware of this law, Sancho cynically w...
"Schenck v. United States. Baer v. Same.." LII. Cornell University Law school, n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2014. .
The opinion of the court determined that “a biological Indian father could abandon his child in utero and refuse any support for the birth mother—perhaps contributing to the mother’s decision to put the child up for adoption—and then could play his ICWA trump card at the eleventh hour to override the mother’s decision and the child’s best interests.” Brown, nor his family, made an effort to be a part of the child’s life before the adoptive couple filed paperwork; therefore, the destruction of an Indian family would not be relevant in the decision-making
for attorneys, this case was a significant change in the United States judicial system, and
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
was clear in his dissenting opinion of the current appeal court and the lower court that the area of
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Harada possessed property before acquiring property from Gunnerson, “suggesting this method of purchasing property processed easily.” His neighbors noticed the purchase and attempted to dispose of his Japanese family by offering an exceptional amount of profit. The People of the State of California versus Jukichi Harada favored Harada, indicating his right to own and purchase property “in good faith, with the funds of the children, and not as a circumvention of the Alien Land Law.” Americans in California responded negatively insisting Harada violated the Alien Land Law, which eventually reached the press throughout the state and the eastern regions of the United States. Additionally, Oyama versus California guaranteed “equal access to property regardless of race” in 1948. This case supported the impact and the defeat of the California Alien Land Laws several years after the decision. Americans sensed their racial superiority over the Asian community and attempted to subdue their chances of employment.
People v. Jones, 792 P. 2d 643 - Cal: Supreme Court 1990. Supreme Court of California. 28 June