In American legal historiography, the debate concerning the exact contours and reforms of the Progressive Era is still ongoing. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Although progressive attitudes toward the economy, taxation, foreign policy, labor law, social standards, human rights, women’s suffrage, rapid urbanization and unrestricted immigration highlighted the necessity of reforms, such progress was seen from a variety of perspectives. We may ask the question if American legal thought that time was really progressive. The jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court profoundly influenced the shape of the legal order in economic and labor law. Unfortunately, some decisions were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected the ideological attitudes of the justices rather than an aspiration for reform.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.