## Facts

- Kaoru Yamataya, a 15-year-old Japanese national, arrived in Seattle on July 11, 1901.
- Four days later, immigration officials arrested and detained her as a “pauper” and “person likely to become a public charge” under the Immigration Act of 1891.
- An immigration inspector investigated and reported findings to the Secretary of the Treasury.
- On July 23, 1901, the Secretary issued a warrant ordering her return to Japan at the carrier’s expense.
- Yamataya sought habeas relief in federal district court, alleging unlawful detention and that the “investigation” was only a pretense because she did not understand English, lacked counsel or friends, and did not understand the proceeding’s nature or consequences.
- The district court denied habeas relief, leaving the deportation order in effect.

## Issues

1. Whether an alien who has physically entered the United States may be deported by executive officers without any opportunity to be heard consistent with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
2. Whether federal courts may review the fairness of administrative deportation proceedings, and if so, how far that review extends.
3. Whether a treaty provision granting Japanese subjects liberty to enter and reside limited Congress’s power to exclude or remove paupers or persons likely to become public charges.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of habeas relief and sustained the deportation order.
- The Court held Congress may set conditions for entry and removal and may commit enforcement to executive officers without judicial re-determination of the facts.
- The Court held that, once an alien has entered and is within U.S. jurisdiction, executive officers may not deport the person by arbitrary action without an opportunity to be heard consistent with fundamental due process.
- The Court concluded the record showed Yamataya received notice and an opportunity to be heard (though informal) sufficient to satisfy minimal due process, and the judiciary could not re-try the executive’s factual determination.
- The Court rejected the treaty argument, reasoning that immigration exclusions for paupers/public charges fall within “police and public security” regulations excepted from the treaty’s operation.
- Justice Brewer, joined by Justice Peckham, dissented, disputing the adequacy of the procedures and the breadth of unreviewable executive discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Congress has broad constitutional authority to regulate immigration, including exclusion and deportation, and may delegate enforcement to executive officers.
- Aliens physically present in the United States, even if unlawfully here, are protected against arbitrary deprivation of liberty; deportation procedures must provide an opportunity to be heard consistent with fundamental due process.
- Judicial review in deportation-related habeas proceedings is limited to whether the process was so unfair or arbitrary as to violate due process; courts generally do not reweigh evidence or revisit the executive’s factual findings when some hearing was provided.
- Treaty provisions allowing entry and residence may be limited by express exceptions for “police and public security,” permitting statutory exclusions of paupers and persons likely to become public charges.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Yamataya’s deportation while recognizing that an alien who has entered the United States cannot be removed through arbitrary executive action and must receive at least a fair opportunity to be heard; courts may police procedural due process but not re-litigate the merits of executive deportability findings when a minimal hearing occurred.


Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903)