Congress enacted a restriction on the importation of foreign workers. A fairly straightforward Act, it appeared to embody a complete and total ban on the hiring of foreigners to fill jobs here in America.
An employer in New York -- home of the Great White Way, Broadway -- ignores the law because, in its judgment, the person best suited to play the role it needed filled was not an American, was not a resident alien. No, the actor needed for this Big Apple post was an Englishman.
And, rather than ask folks in DC to create an exception to their ban on foreign workers, the New York venue simply hired the Brit!
Subsequently, that decision, giving an "American" job to a foreigner, came before the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, that decision, giving an "American" job to a foreigner, came before the Supreme Court.
On the government's side of the dispute, the case was CLEAR CUT: there simply was NO EXCEPTION IN THE STATUTE for hiring the Brit, no matter how much the New York employer thought the Brit fit the bill!
On the employer's side, while it might seem that the language of the ban was straightforward and absolute, it could not be read in that way consistent with the intent of Congress.
Congress would not have intended that employers of the sort of that New York venue be prohibited from hiring the shiniest of stars!
To decide this case today would simply require that the statutory text, which was clear and plain on its face, be applied to the facts.
To decide this case today would simply require that the statutory text, which was clear and plain on its face, be applied to the facts.
There was no subtlety, no nuance of language. In essence, the law was as simple as, "No foreigners may be imported to fill jobs in the US."
But the Supreme Court, in 1892, was not of a mind to take that approach, which would have resulted in the British employee being terminated from his role ... as the Rector of Holy Trinity Church in New York City.
Instead, the Supreme Court REJECTED a facial reading of the ban on foreign workers. The Court recounted three centuries of European history in America, the American colonial experience, the Revolution, and the aftermath, in order to derive a certain conclusion:
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).
You can read #SCOTUS's historical review in Holy Trinity Church, that led it to its conclusion in that case, that Congress COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED to interfere with a church's liberty to choose its minister, even if doing so meant violating an ban on hiring foreign workers.
It goes back to the Mayflower Compact, comes forward through colonial charters, visits the many statutory prohibitions on blasphemy, and take other twists and turns to support its premise: "We are a Christian Nation."
@threadreaderapp unroll
