Yick Wo v Hopkins
Lee Yick had operated a laundry facility in San Francisco for 22 years and ran it without trouble. That is, until 1880, when an ordinance (regulation) made it mandatory to hold a specific permit in order to continue operating as a laundry business. Yick’s application for a permit was denied, yet he continued to conduct business. It was found that, even though most laundry businesses were owned by Chinese people, none of them received permits. However, virtually all non-Chinese applicants received a permit. This brought into question the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, where no person will “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Breakdown Verdict.
A unanimous decision confirmed that the ordinance was wrongfully enforced and had to be taken down. The ordinance itself was not the issue, but rather the way that it was being used. After all, denying opportunities and freedoms to people like Lee Yick was the same, whether it was done openly or under a legal veil. The famous judgment was that “a law that is administered with an evil eye or an unequal hand violates a right to equal protection.”
Result Going Forward.
Yick Wo v Hopkins moved forward the continuous pursuit of equality for the Supreme Court, protecting the constitutional rights of non-citizens like Lee Yick. The case established that a facially neutral law still violates the Equal Protection Clause if it is enforced in a discriminatory manner. This case is often used in modern arguments of discriminatory practice or claims of discriminatory enforcement.
Do you agree with the verdict?
100%
0%