14th Amendment anyone?
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): The Court struck down a San Francisco ordinance that was applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese laundry owners, ruling that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons, not just citizens.
Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission (1948): The Court invalidated a California law that denied commercial fishing licenses to Japanese immigrants ineligible for citizenship, ruling that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Court invalidated state laws that imposed residency requirements on legal aliens seeking welfare benefits. The Court ruled that such laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applying strict scrutiny to classifications based on alienage.
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding for the education of children who were not legally admitted into the United States. The Court held that these children are "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment and thus entitled to its protections, emphasizing that they could not be discriminated against without a substantial state interest.
Non-citizens are protected under the 14th Amendment.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): The Court struck down a San Francisco ordinance that was applied in a discriminatory manner against Chinese laundry owners, ruling that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons, not just citizens.
Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission (1948): The Court invalidated a California law that denied commercial fishing licenses to Japanese immigrants ineligible for citizenship, ruling that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Graham v. Richardson (1971), the Court invalidated state laws that imposed residency requirements on legal aliens seeking welfare benefits. The Court ruled that such laws violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applying strict scrutiny to classifications based on alienage.
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding for the education of children who were not legally admitted into the United States. The Court held that these children are "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment and thus entitled to its protections, emphasizing that they could not be discriminated against without a substantial state interest.
Non-citizens are protected under the 14th Amendment.