Spring 2017] IS THE CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE STILL GOOD LAW? 85
of government, not the judiciary.
30
Moreover, the Court framed the question en-
tirely as a matter of foreign relations, so that only the government of China
might plausibly pose a complaint, not Mr. Chae as an individual.
31
The Court’s emphatic endorsement of federal authority over immigration,
coupled with its reluctance to seriously consider constitutional limitations on
that authority, established the basic parameters for immigration law for more
than a century.
32
Despite blistering criticism, the plenary power doctrine en-
dured largely intact through the end of the twentieth century.
33
This doctrine
has seemed less robust in the twenty-first century—though it remains quite dif-
ficult to define exactly where it stands.
34
Donald Trump assumed the presiden-
cy in the midst of this constitutional ambiguity.
II.! ADDRESSING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
Mr. Chae’s ordeal developed slowly on board a nineteenth century steam-
ship crossing the Pacific. It was re-enacted at higher speed in January 2017
when legal residents and visa holders were stranded and detained at airports
around the world.
35
A legal permanent resident who lived with her fiancée in
Grand Rapids, Michigan was stranded in Iran after she had gone to visit her
family there.
36
A medical resident from Chicago was prevented from returning
after he had left the country to get married.
37
A producer for CNN, a legal per-
30
Id. at 609 (“Whatever license, therefore, Chinese laborers may have obtained, previous to
the act of October 1, 1888, to return to the United States after their departure, is held at the
will of the government, revocable at any time, at its pleasure. Whether a proper considera-
tion by our government of its previous laws, or a proper respect for the nation whose sub-
jects are affected by its action, ought to have qualified its inhibition, and made it applicable
only to persons departing from the country after the passage of the act, are not questions for
judicial determination.”).
31
Id. (“If there be any just ground of complaint on the part of China, it must be made to the
political department of our government.”).
32
See Stephen Legomsky, Immigration Law and the Principle of Plenary Congressional
Power, 1984 SUP. CT. REV. 255 (1984) (defining the concept and evolution of plenary pow-
er); see also Michael Kagan, Immigration Law’s Looming Fourth Amendment Problem, 104
GEO. L.J. 125, 135–37 (2015) (tracing the evolution of the doctrine to the present).
33
See Stephen Legomsky, Ten More Years of Plenary Power: Immigration, Congress, and
the Courts, 22 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 925 (1995).
34
See Michael Kagan, Plenary Power Is Dead! Long Live Plenary Power!, 114 MICH. L.
REV. FIRST IMPRESSIONS 21 (2015).
35
See Dan Merica, How Trump's Travel Ban Affects Green Card Holders and Dual Citi-
zens, CNN.COM (Jan. 29, 2017, 8:36 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/donald-
trump-travel-ban-green-card-dual-citizens/index.html [https://perma.cc/8VFV-GTPS].
36
Doug Reardon, Travel Ban: Local Man’s Fiancée Stranded in Iran, FOX 17 (Jan. 30,
2017, 7:29 AM), http://fox17online.com/2017/01/29/travel-ban-local-mans-fiancee-stranded-
in-iran/ [https://perma.cc/HDQ7-TCQW].
37
Jason Meisner, 2 Stranded Overseas by Trump Travel Ban Allowed to Return to Chicago,
CHICAGO TRIB. (Feb. 1, 2017, 5:20 PM), http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/break
ing/ct-trump-immigration-ban-court-met-20170201-story.html [https://perma.cc/VVE7-TBU