Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Last updated
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Wo Lee v. Hopkins
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Submitted April 14, 1886
Decided May 10, 1886
Full case nameYick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff
Citations118 U.S. 356 ( more )
6 S. Ct. 1064; 30 L. Ed. 220; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1938
Case history
PriorIn re Yick Wo, writ of habeas corpus denied, 9 P. 139 (Cal. 1885); In re Wo Lee, writ of habeas corpus denied, 26 F. 471 (D. Cal. 1886)
Holding
1. Racially discriminatory application of a racially neutral statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Non-citizens in the jurisdiction of the United States have equal protection rights. Supreme Court of California and Circuit Court for the District of California reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityMatthews, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]

Contents

Background

Yick Wo (Chinese :益和; Jyutping :jik1 wo4) was a laundry facility owned by Lee Yick, an immigrant from China who moved to San Francisco in 1861. Yick ran the laundry for 22 years and held a license from the Board of Fire Wardens and a certificate of inspection from the city health officer without issue. In 1880, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance making it illegal to operate a laundry in a wooden building without a permit from the Board. [1] [2] Under the new ordinance, Yick was granted a license in 1884 to operate his laundry facility in the wooden building where he was located. [1]

Yick’s application for renewal of his permit in June 1885 was denied, not allowing him to continue operating his laundry in a wooden building. [3] When his original permit expired in October 1885 he was required by law to shut down. However, he refused to close down his business and was convicted for violating the ordinance. He was fined ten dollars ($316.00 in 2023) and imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine. After he was imprisoned, on August 24, 1885, he petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus . [1] [4]

Of 320 laundries operated in wooden buildings, in San Francisco at the time, over 200 were owned by Chinese. When the 200 Chinese owned laundry owners tried to renew their permits, only one permit was granted. Whereas, the non-Chinese applicants with the exception of one, all were granted. [1] [5]

San Francisco ordinance

Order No. 156, passed May 26, 1880

SEC. 1. It shall be unlawful, from and after the passage of this order, for any person or persons to establish, maintain, or carry on a laundry within the corporate limits of the city and county of San Francisco without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone.

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, build, or maintain, or cause to be erected, built, or maintained, over or upon the roof of any building now erected or which may hereafter be erected within the limits of said city and county, any scaffolding without first obtaining the written permission of the board of supervisors, which permit shall state fully for what purpose said scaffolding is to be erected and used, and such scaffolding shall not be used for any other purpose than that designated in such permit.

SEC. 3. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail, not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [1]

Issue

The central issue of the case was whether the enforcement of the new requirements for laundires operated in wooden buildings violated Yick Wo's protections found in the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause can be found in the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. It requires that "no state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [6] There is also the issue around whether a law can be written in a neutral way but enforced discriminately. [7]

Arguments

The state argued that the ordinance was strictly one out of concern for safety. Laundries of the day often needed very hot stoves to boil water for laundry, and laundry fires were not unknown and often resulted in the destruction of adjoining buildings as well. [1]

The argument on the side of the petitioner was about the administration of the new ordinance. The counsel strove to show that while, Chinese applicants were denied permits to continue running their laundries in wooden buildings, non-Chinese individuals were nearly all granted permits under the same ordinance. [4] The petitioner pointed out that prior to the new ordinance, the inspection and approval of laundries in wooden buildings had been left up to fire wardens. Wo's laundry had never failed an inspection for fire safety. Moreover, the application of the prior law focused only on laundries in crowded areas of the city, while the new law was being enforced on isolated wooden buildings as well. The law also ignored other wooden buildings where fires were common—even cooking stoves posed the same risk as those used for laundries. [1]

Opinion of the Court

The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Matthews, found that the Chinese laundry owners were protected from discriminatory state action by the equal protection clause even if they were not American citizens: [6] [8]

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.

The Court struck down the ordinance. While the ordinance was not discriminatory against a racial or ethnic group in its text, the discriminatory enforcement and intent to close down Chinese-owned laundries infringed upon their "fundamental rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by destroying "their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood." [6] The Court said the deprivation of property was arbitrary and unconstitutional because the 14th amendments guarantee of equal protection applies to "all persons within the territorial jurisdiction", including non-citizens. [2] As Justice Anthony Kennedy has explained, the holding of Yick Wo is about purposeful discrimination: [9] [10]

The holding of Yick Wo was that a law that's administered with an evil eye or an unequal hand violates [a person's] right to equal protection.

Legacy

Even after the Yick Wo decision Supreme Court case law continued to apply a Dred Scott-like standard excluding Chinese from the protections of the constitution in immigration cases. [11] The Chinese Exclusion Act, passed in 1882, restricted the entry of Chinese immigrant laborers and subsequent legislation prevented Chinese who left the United States from re-entering. The Chinese Exclusion Case upheld the revocation of previously issued certificates of return. [12]

The Court in Fong Yue wrote that Yick Wo was a case about "the power of a State over aliens continuing to reside within its jurisdiction". The Fong Yue Ting decision did not go as far as overturning Yick Wo, but Yick Wo did not limit the federal power to deport or remove that were at issue in the later Chinese Exclusion Case and Fong Yue. [12]

In Wong Kim Ark v. United States the Court recognized that the 14th amendment right to jus soli citizenship applied for Chinese born in the United States based on Yick Wo. The federal government's argument was about the text of the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The government argued that the jurisdiction requirement was not merely territorial, but required citizens be politically subject to the laws of the United States. Writing for the majority Justice Horace Gray relied heavily on the Yick Wo precedent to reaffirm the principle that 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection does not have a heightened subjecthood requirement for Chinese people: [13] [14]

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

Yick Wo is cited in Hirabayashi v. United States [15] to recognize that: "Distinctions between citizens solely based because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection." However, the US Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Gordon Hirabayashi, the Japanese American who tested the curfew law and refused to register for the forced internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II.

In San Francisco there is a public school named Yick Wo Alternative Elementary School in honor of Yick Wo.

During his confirmation hearing Anthony Kennedy's written answers to Senator Joseph Biden included a quote from Flores v. Pierce, a 9th Circuit decision he wrote applying Yick Wo to uphold a judgment against municipal officials who had a "history of racially motivated activity" against Hispanics: [16] [17]

One of the first cases interpreting the equal protection clause stands for the rule, among others, that the effect of a law may be so harsh or adverse in its weight against a particular race that an intent to discriminate is not only a permissible inference but also a necessary one. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 In the instant case, the disparate effect of the action on Mexican-Americans was so compelling that the effect may approach, if it does not reach, the demonstration of an intent to discriminate that was made in Yick Wo v. Hopkins.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for African-Americans were equal in quality to those of white people, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many state "Jim Crow laws" re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877. Such legally enforced segregation in the South lasted into the 1960s.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

In jurisprudence, selective prosecution is a procedural defense in which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because the criminal justice system discriminated against them by choosing to prosecute. In claims of selective prosecution, defendants essentially argue that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, sex, gender, or political alignment, were engaged in the same illegal acts for which the defendant is being tried yet were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is being prosecuted specifically because of a bias as to that class.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stanley Matthews (judge)</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1881 to 1889

Thomas Stanley Matthews, known as Stanley Matthews in adulthood, was an American attorney, soldier, judge and Republican senator from Ohio who became an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from May 1881 to his death in 1889. A progressive justice, he was the author of the landmark rulings Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Ex parte Crow Dog

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land. In doing so, however, the court did not overturn the California Alien Land Laws as unconstitutional.

Murray v. Pearson was a Maryland Court of Appeals decision which found "the state has undertaken the function of education in the law, but has omitted students of one race from the only adequate provision made for it, and omitted them solely because of their color." On January 15, 1936, the court affirmed the lower court ruling which ordered the university to immediately integrate its student population, and therefore created a legal precedent making segregation in Maryland illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal justice under law</span> Societal ideal in the U.S. legal system

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the West Pediment, above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial aspects of race in the United States</span>

Legislation seeking to direct relations between racial or ethnic groups in the United States has had several historical phases, developing from the European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. The 1776 Declaration of Independence included the statement that "all men are created equal", which has ultimately inspired actions and legislation against slavery and racial discrimination. Such actions have led to passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

<i>Talton v. Mayes</i> 1896 United States Supreme Court case

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the protection from double jeopardy by the federal government. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for the same charge. In this case, the court ruled that despite the error of the District Judge, the 5th Amendment protected the defendants from facing a second trial for the same charge.

Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (1885), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Waite Court</span>

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Truax v Raich239 US 33 (1915) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor laws, the right to work, immigration law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 1 2 Asian Americans [3 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Social, Cultural, Economic, and Political History [3 Volumes]. United States: ABC-CLIO, 2013, 1240.
  3. ↑ ABA Journal Aug 1982, p. 964
  4. 1 2 "| Supreme Court | US Law". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-10-03.
  5. ↑ The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. United States: Oxford University Press, 2009.
  6. 1 2 3 Motomura, Hiroshi. Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States. United States: Oxford University Press, USA, 2006.
  7. ↑ "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" . Retrieved 2024-10-31.
  8. ↑ Yick Wo at 369
  9. ↑ "The Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society.
  10. ↑ There are three ways to show purposeful discrimination in equal protection cases. The first is prima facie - the law is discriminatory on its face Strauder v. West Virginia 100 US 303 (1880). The second is discrimination in administration - this is the type of purposeful discrimination that is the subject of Yick Wo. The third is purpose shown by circumstantial evidence Rogers v. Lodge 458 US 613 (1982). Emanuel, S. L. (2023). Emanuel Law Outlines for Constitutional Law. United States: Aspen Publishing, 257.
  11. ↑ "But they continue to be aliens, having taken no steps toward becoming citizens, and incapable of becoming such under the naturalization laws; and therefore remain subject to the power of Congress to expel them, or to order them to be removed and deported from the country, whenever in its judgment their removal is necessary or expedient..." Fong Yue Ting v. United States , 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
  12. 1 2 Fiss, Owen M. History of the Supreme Court of the United States. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 10.
  13. ↑ Wong Kim Ark v. United States , 169 US 649
  14. ↑ Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties [4 Volumes]: Revised and Expanded Edition [4 Volumes]. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.
  15. ↑ Hirabayashi v. United States , 320 U.S. 81 (1943).
  16. ↑ Nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, First Session ... December 14, 15, and 16, 1987. (1989) United States: U.S. Government Printing Office, 731.
  17. ↑ Flores 617 F. 2d at 1389
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.