Connection lost
Server error
Chae Chan Ping v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Chinese laborer with a government-issued return certificate was denied re-entry to the U.S. after Congress passed a new law voiding the certificates. The Supreme Court upheld the law, establishing that Congress has the sovereign power to exclude aliens, even if doing so violates a treaty.
Legal Significance: Established the “last-in-time” rule, where a federal statute supersedes a conflicting earlier treaty. It also affirmed the federal government’s inherent sovereign power to control immigration, a political power largely beyond judicial review, which became known as the plenary power doctrine.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese laborer, had resided in the United States for twelve years. He departed for a visit to China in 1887, possessing a certificate issued under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, as amended in 1884. This certificate explicitly entitled him to return to the United States. While he was abroad, Congress passed the Scott Act of October 1, 1888, which prohibited all Chinese laborers from entering the U.S. and declared all previously issued return certificates void. Upon his return to San Francisco, Ping presented his certificate but was denied entry by the collector of the port based on the 1888 Act. Ping filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the 1888 Act was unconstitutional because it violated the 1868 Burlingame Treaty and the 1880 Angell Treaty with China, which guaranteed his right of re-entry. He also claimed the act deprived him of a vested right to return.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Congress have the constitutional power to enact legislation excluding aliens that contravenes the provisions of a prior treaty?
Yes. The Court affirmed the denial of entry, holding that the Scott Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does Congress have the constitutional power to enact legislation excluding aliens that contravenes the provisions of a prior treaty?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent in both Constitutional and Immigration Law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
A federal statute enacted after a treaty takes effect supersedes any conflicting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis rests on two pillars of federal power. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The power to exclude aliens is an inherent attribute of national
