Today in Supreme Court History: November 17, 1880

11/17/1880: The United States and China sign treaty that protects Chinese laborers residing in the United States. This treaty was implicated in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).

 

Comments

[apedad]

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

Facts of the case

An 1880 ordinance of the city of San Francisco required all laundries in wooden buildings to hold a permit issued by the city's Board of Supervisors. The board had total discretion over who would be issued a permit. Although workers of Chinese descent operated 89 percent of the city's laundry businesses, not a single Chinese owner was granted a permit. Yick Wo and Wo Lee each operated laundry businesses without a permit and, after refusing to pay a $10 fine, were imprisoned by the city's sheriff, Peter Hopkins. Each sued for writ of habeas corpus, arguing the fine and discriminatory enforcement of the ordinance violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Noting that, on its face, the law is nondiscriminatory, the Supreme Court of California and the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California denied claims for Yick Wo and Wo Lee, respectively.

Question

Did the unequal enforcement of the city ordinance violate Yick Wo and Wo Lee's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice T. Stanley Matthews, the Court concluded that, despite the impartial wording of the law, its biased enforcement violated the Equal Protection Clause. According to the Court, even if the law is impartial on its face, "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." The kind of biased enforcement experienced by the plaintiffs, the Court concluded, amounted to "a practical denial by the State of that equal protection of the law" and therefore violated the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. (oyez)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This (along with Hurtado v. California and Ex parte Crow Dog) was one of the most notable opinions by Justice Stanley Matthews (not to be confused with the English footballer).

[The "T." is for "Thomas."]

This case is an important precedent as an example of the potential reach of the Equal Protection Clause. Also, it has some very quotable dicta. The author was known for this sort of thing.

"For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

That is but one bit. There is also this well-quoted passage:

"The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights."

The Supreme Court later called it a "fundamental right," notable for applying the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections (page cites omitted):

Long ago, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court referred to "the political franchise of voting" as a "fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights." Recently, in Reynolds v. Sims, we said,

"Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Anyway, multiple amendments cite a "right to vote" and ways it must not be abridged. Lots of people, including some framers, said citizenship assumes a right to vote, pursuant to reasonable restrictions. Justice Bushrod Washington, in one opinion, included it among his privileges and immunities of citizenship.

[Krayt]

To say you don't have a right to vote presumes the powerful can deny it at their whim. As with any other right, why start out with a philosophical baseline your existence must begin on bended knee to them? They are your gods who deign to grant you rights. Why would one do that?

[Krayt]