Today in Supreme Court History: May 10, 1886

5/10/1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins decided.

Comments

[Speaking for normal people]

Josh, didn't watch your video but hope you mentioned the two big facts
1) Plessy was whiter than Wayne Newton.
2_Governent created the racism it was itself addressing. Plessy had 1 of 8 great-grandparents who was 'Black" so he was legally 'Black'
He had to tell the conductor that he is legally Black so he could get arrested

So Plessy should be called the Total Lawyer Failure

[Speaking for normal people]

Yick Wo another huge lawyer fail.
I recently saw the amazing legal overreach on a similar case
"It takes 1,500 hours of training in Louisiana to get a cosmetology license"
Libertarians just ignore their dearest convictions:
"“Licensure,” Friedman wrote in his influential 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, “frequently establishes essentially the medieval guild kind of regulation in which the state assigns power to members of the profession. … Any one of these measures, whether it be registration, certification or licensure, almost inevitably becomes a tool in the hands of a special producer group to obtain a monopoly position at the expense of the rest of the public.“
"

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yick Wo has multiple important aspects.

Universality of 14A (including as to "aliens")

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, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Importance of Voting Rights

fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights

Effects Can Override Alleged Legit Purpose

Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.

And, overall, courts have a role in determining this.

[A Japanese Student]

Rape Causing Injury Case (Third Petty Bench, decided May 10, 1949): "Force or threat of force" (element of rape until 2023) is one that significantly impairs the victim's ability to resist (which created a particularly demeaning defense - that because the victim could have resisted, the defendant should be acquitted; 2023 amendment made most, but not all, nonconsensual sex criminal)

"Sunday Goraku" Case (First Petty Bench, decided May 10, 1951): Defined obscenity as work that is immoral, stimulates the sexual desire, and is harmful to one's sense of shame (see also Lady Chatterley Case, March 13; 1980 ruling limited its scope by adopting first prong of Miller test (the work, when taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest); the contemporary police definition of obscenity, which is less ambiguous but definitely overbroad, is that uncensored depictions of genitals is obscene)

Retention of Stolen Property Case (Second Petty Bench, decided May 10, 1963): Bombs used by Imperial military, dumped at sea after disbandment, is not abandoned but owned by the Japanese government after San Francisco Treaty

Customs Act Case (First Petty Bench, decided May 10, 1979): Importer of contraband must file a customs declaration, and that does not constitute self-incrimination

Tort Claims Case (Third Petty Bench, decided May 10, 1991): Government must provide reasonable means of scheduling defense counsel-defendant interview; requiring counsel seeking immediate interview to obtain paper forms from the prosecutor's office (1-hour drive from police station) was unreasonable

Special Kokoku-Appeal to Order Denying Increase of Defense Counsels (Third Petty Bench, decided May 10, 2012): Complexity of case can be "special circumstances" permitting more than three pre-indictment defense counsels; here, the suspect was accused of corporate tax evasion