The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld the authority of the US federal government to set immigration policy and to pass new legislation even if it overrode the terms of previous international treaties.

[2] The decision was an important precedent for the Supreme Court's deference to the plenary power of the legislative branch in immigration law and the government's authority to overturn the terms of international treaties.

"[5] In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, forbidding the immigration of skilled and unskilled laborers from China to the United States.

Chae Chan Ping departed on his return journey to the United States on September 7, 1888, from Hong Kong, on the steamship Belgic.

Field had pushed back against legislation such as the Pigtail Ordinance, which was de facto discriminatory against the Chinese and so courted unpopularity in California.

The Court opinion described the Chinese people as "vast hordes" "crowding in upon us: and stated that if "the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects.

Some commentators argue that the case was an important precedent in establishing the plenary power doctrine, which immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of Congress and the executive branch of the federal government.

Some commentators have also cited the decisions made in this case as having precedential value for the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which would emerge in the latter half of the 20th century although it was not a direct precedent, and that term was not yet in use.

[4] Although the case did not touch on the authority of US consulates, it arguably addressed similar questions since the task of determining whether an individual would be allowed to enter the United States was then solely undertaken by the officer at the port of entry.

[4][19] The purported significance attached to the case, which was decided at a time of large anti-Chinese sentiment, may have played a role in influencing the court decisions, which have been criticized by commentators and compared to the precedents Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Fergusson.