Soon Hing v. Crowley was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of immigration. The case involved Soon Hing, a Chinese immigrant who had been denied entry into the United States by the Collector of Customs in San Francisco. Soon Hing had been denied entry because he was unable to produce a certificate of residence, which was required by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Soon Hing argued that the Chinese Exclusion Act was unconstitutional and that he should be allowed to enter the United States. The Supreme Court agreed with Soon Hing and held that the Chinese Exclusion Act was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Court also held that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Court reasoned that the Act discriminated against Chinese immigrants based on their race and national origin, and that this was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's decision in Soon Hing v. Crowley was a landmark ruling that established the principle that the government cannot discriminate against individuals based on their race or national origin. The decision also established the principle that the government must provide due process of law to all individuals, regardless of their race or national origin.

In Soon Hing v. Crowley, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Chinese immigrant who had been denied entry to the United States could sue for damages in federal court. The majority opinion held that he could not, as Congress had passed legislation preventing him from suing in such a manner. Justice Field dissented, arguing that this decision violated both the Fifth Amendment and Article IV of the Constitution by denying an individual their right to due process and equal protection under law. He argued that while Congress may have intended to prevent immigrants from entering without permission or inspection, they did not intend to deny them access to justice if wronged by another party within U.S borders; thus allowing such an action would be consistent with congressional intent and constitutional principles alike.