[1][2][3][4] The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates.

[1][5] The Supreme Court decision (5 to 3) was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

"[6] In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, forbidding (for ten years) the immigration of skilled and unskilled laborers from China to the United States.

Authored by William Lawrence Scott of Pennsylvania, the act was signed into law by United States President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888.

One key set of provisions shifted the burden of proof for demonstrating the right to be in the United States on to the Chinese resident.

The case in question involved petitions by three Chinese citizens residing in the United States, each of whom had not successfully obtained certificates of residence though with slight differences:[1] In all three cases, the petitioner (the Chinese citizen) alleged that his arrest and detention were without due process of law, and that Section 6 of the Geary Act, which required a "white witness" and had been used to justify the arrest and detention, was unconstitutional and void.

[1] The case was decided in favor of the United States government by a margin of 5 to 3,[13] with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Horace Gray.

He also noted that the Geary Act was unprecedented in that it applied to Chinese who had already entered the United States and were present in the country for the long term as resident aliens, rather than as temporary travelers.

Unlike the other judges, Field had historically placed more importance on protecting and upholding the rights of Chinese already in the United States but was also more deferential to stronger restrictions on admission.

And Turner v. Williams, decided in 1904, cited Fong Yue Ting v. United States in finding that the deportation of an alien, in this case an anarchist, without a trial did not violate due process.