AABANY Presents “Born American: United States v. Wong Kim Ark” at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

As Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage (AANHPI) Month wound down, attendees gathered on May 27, 2026 in downtown Manhattan to watch the latest historical trial reenactment produced by the Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY) entitled Born American: United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship as a Constitutional right in 1898, is AABANY’s 17th trial reenactment. This project brings to life notable cases involving Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, to spotlight significant ways that AANHPI individuals contributed to the legal, social, and political history of the United States. Reenactments are first performed at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) Convention in November, then again in May during AANHPI Heritage Month in New York. 

AABANY’s latest trial reenactment made its New York debut at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP. Attendees settled in to watch a cast of 37 characters played by some 17 lawyers, including many AABANY members.

The reenactment had two narrators, who are also the writers, producers, and leaders of the AABANY Trial Reenactment team: Hon. Denny Chin, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Kathy Hirata Chin, a retired Partner of Crowell & Moring LLP and previously a retired Cadwalader Partner.

Other cast members included:

Anna Mercado Clark, Phillips Lytle LLP, Partner and Chief Information Security Officer (past NAPABA President, former AABANY Board Officer)

Vincent T. Chang, Law Clerk for Hon. James d’Auguste, Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division (former AABANY President)

Andrew T. Hahn, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP, General Counsel (former AABANY, KALAGNY, and NAPABA President)

Yasuhiro Saito, Saito Law Group PLLC, Managing Partner

Francis H. Chin, Opensity Solutions, Senior Systems Engineer (AABANY Membership Director)

Yang Chen, Asian American Bar Association of New York, Executive Director (former AABANY President)

Pamela K. Chen, United States District Judge, Eastern District of New York

Concepcion A. Montoya, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Partner

Lauren U.Y. Lee, Korean American Family Service Center, Board of Directors; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, former Special Counsel

Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Senior United States District Judge, Eastern District of New York

Rose Cuison Villazor, Rutgers Law School, Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Social Justice Scholar

Jacob Chen, DGW Kramer LLP, Litigation Partner

Jane Kim, Wigdor LLP, Partner; former clerk for Hon. Denny Chin

Janicelynn Asamoto Park, Proskauer Rose LLP, Partner; former clerk for Hon. Denny Chin

Jessica C. Wong, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Special Counsel

This reenactment was bookended by the case’s connection to current events. The narrators described President Donald Trump’s January 2025 Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which sought to remove birthright citizenship from US-born children of parents who are undocumented or in the country temporarily. 

This case follows the story and life of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents in 1870, one of only 518 ethnic Chinese born in the United States that year. Wong took multiple trips back to China, before returning to America in 1894, at which point he was denied entry on the grounds of not being a citizen. 

That denial was appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The question before the Court was whether Wong should follow the citizenship of his parents or of where he was born. The reenactment reconstructed the Supreme Court argument, for which no transcript exists, using the briefs, the resulting court opinions, news reports, and other historical documents. Arguments revolved around whether children born in the U.S. are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” under its plain meaning as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The original intent of Congress with regard to children born to foreign-born parents, as well as the implications of barring Wong Kim Ark’s birthright citizenship upon existing immigrant communities—European immigrants—and children of other nationalities, were also explored in the reenactment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed Wong’s citizenship in a 6-2 decision in 1898, setting a legal precedent for more than a century. The majority ruling held that the 14th Amendment’s “ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory” and its “peremptory and explicit language” all made Wong an American citizen.

However, Wong’s immigration troubles did not stop there, for either himself or his children. He lived in a time when anti-Chinese sentiment was rampant. Even within the decision itself, Justice John Marshall Harlan, for the dissent, wrote that “There is a race so different from ours that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States.” This captures the discrimination that society had at the time towards Chinese immigrants in America.

The reenactment further explored Wong’s life, as well as his family’s, after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Wong was later arrested in 1901 upon crossing the US-Mexico border, though the case was eventually dismissed—because of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. His four sons, born in China, faced intense scrutiny when they sought to come to the United States seeking citizenship as sons of a U.S. citizen. They faced heightened suspicion and interrogation that stretched over weeks or months of detention and aimed to determine their familial relationship to Wong, a form of scrutiny common to Chinese immigrants in the early 20th century. 

The end of the reenactment returned to Trump’s executive order. The many lawsuits and preliminary injunctions that responded to Trump’s January order make frequent reference to United States v. Wong Kim Ark as well-settled precedent for birthright citizenship. The reenactment shares the responses to Trump’s Executive Order, including one from Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland, who said that the executive order “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment [and] contradicts 125-year old binding Supreme Court precedent.”

In this context, it becomes vitally important to revisit Wong Kim Ark’s life and times. Amid the prevalence of anti-immigrant rhetoric during the 1890s, United States v. Wong Kim Ark set precedent for generations of immigrants, including Asian Americans, and was reaffirmed throughout a series of 20th century Supreme Court cases, including INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214 (1966) and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

A discussion panel and Q&A session followed the reenactment, where questions of relevance to current times were at the forefront. Attendees questioned and discussed how America would change if birthright citizenship gets overturned. Mere months ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Barbara v. Donald J. Trump, the class action against President Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship. It was especially enlightening to hear Judge Chin talk about how putting together this reenactment made him understand his own family’s immigration history better and shined a light on often unspoken parts of the Chinese immigrant experience.

The reenactment highlighted the reaction from Wong Kim Ark’s great-grandson Norman Wong. Norman said in an interview for a documentary, “We thought [birthright citizenship] was a dead issue. These were rights we did not have to fight for anymore. It wasn’t something that anybody would have to worry about. … Now I’m glad [my great-grandfather] stood up.” 

Following the reenactment, guests and participants enjoyed a networking and dinner reception, which included hors d’oeuvres, a dinner buffet, and a delicious handroll bar. Attendees mingled as they ate, reflecting on the reenactment and congratulating the actors for a job well done.

AABANY’s reenactment of United States v. Wong Kim Ark will be made available on AABANY’s trial reenactment website, where the script and materials can be shared upon request. AABANY’s past trial reenactment scripts are also available upon request. In fact, our most popular reenactment, “The Murder of Vincent Chin,” has been performed over 30 times globally. 

We are grateful to all of the participants in the reenactment for dedicating their time to this project. To learn more about the other trial reenactments AABANY has organized, please visit our reenactments website.

NAPABA Applauds Eleventh Circuit Ruling Halting Enforcement of Florida’s Discriminatory Alien Land Law

For Immediate Release: 
Date: February 2, 2024 
ContactRahat N. Babar, Deputy Executive Director for Policy 

WASHINGTON – In the ongoing litigation against Florida’s discriminatory alien land law (“SB 264”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in favor of two of the plaintiffs and halted enforcement of the law against them. In temporarily blocking SB 264, the court held that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood that the statute is preempted by federal law and that they have shown an imminent risk that the law would cause them irreparable harm. The plaintiffs, lawfully present Chinese immigrants, first brought the suit because they were stymied in their efforts to purchase homes when the law went into effect.

“We are grateful that the court recognized the real harm that discriminatory statutes such as SB 264 are imposing on the Asian American community,” said Anna Mercado Clark, President of NAPABA. “As litigation continues, NAPABA will continue to oppose alien land laws, whether in the halls of Congress, in statehouses, or in court, until these discriminatory policies return to the dustbin of history, where they belong.”

In a robust concurrence, Judge Nancy Abudu acknowledged that “SB 264 was enacted for the specific purpose of targeting people of Chinese descent.” Judge Abudu concluded that the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood that statute also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. In doing so, Judge Abudu excoriated the District Court’s fraught reliance on the widely discredited century-old Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), case, determining that it “may have had support in 1923, but it is now 2024” and such laws are now subject to strict scrutiny.

NAPABA, together with its four Florida affiliates, joined an amicus brief before the Eleventh Circuit in the case, continuing our long history for over a decade of leading efforts to overcome the state’s legacy of anti-Asian alien land laws. This includes when Florida became the last state in the United States over five years ago to abolish such discriminatory language from its constitution, only to enact SB 264 last year. Throughout the country, NAPABA and its affiliates continue to fight these discriminatory measures through legislative advocacy and educating lawmakers and the wider public on the painful history and legal implications of wrongfully restricting the property rights of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities.

###

The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) represents the interests of over 60,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.