Cheang-Kee v. United States was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1865 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an alien could be naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The petitioner, Cheang-Kee, argued that he had been living in California for over twenty years and should therefore be allowed to become a citizen under existing laws at the time. The government countered that since Cheang-Kee was born in China, he did not meet all of the requirements necessary for citizenship and thus could not be granted it. In its ruling, however, the court held that although Congress had passed legislation restricting naturalization rights to certain classes of persons based on their place of birth or origin, this restriction did not apply to aliens who were already residing within U.S borders prior to such legislation being enacted; thus allowing Cheang-Kee's petition for citizenship to stand despite his foreign origins. This decision established important precedent regarding immigration law which still stands today: namely that individuals who have resided legally within U.S borders are eligible for naturalization regardless of their country or origin if they can demonstrate sufficient residency duration and other qualifications required by law at any given time period

In Cheang-Kee v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Chinese immigrant who had been living in California for several years could be considered a citizen of the United States and thus eligible to bring suit against another party. The majority opinion held that he was not a citizen because he did not meet the requirements set forth by Congress at that time. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that although Congress had established certain criteria for citizenship, it should not be interpreted as an absolute bar to naturalization or recognition of foreign citizens already residing in America. He further argued that while some immigrants may never become citizens due to their inability to comply with all statutory requirements, they should still have access to legal remedies if wronged by another person or entity within U.S borders.