Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
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. Although workers of Chinese descent operated 89% of the city’s laundry businesses, no Chinese owner was granted a permit. Yick Wo sued, arguing that the discriminatory enforcement of the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause.
A valid law that is applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner is unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
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 complete discretion over the permit issuances. Although workers of Chinese descent operated 89% of the city’s laundry businesses, no Chinese owner was granted a permit. Yick Wo operated a laundry business without a permit and, after refusing to pay a $10 fine, was imprisoned by the city’s sheriff, Hopkins. Wo sued, arguing that the discriminatory enforcement of the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Did the unequal enforcement of the city ordinance violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes, the unequal enforcement of the city ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The facts shown establish an administration directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons as to warrant the conclusion that, whatever the intent of the ordinances adopted, they are applied so unequally and oppressively, as to amount to a practical denial by the state of equal protection. Even if a law appears to be neutral and impartial on its face, if it is applied and administered in a discriminatory way, it is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. No reason for the discriminatory application of this law is shown. Thus, it may be concluded that there is no reason for it except hostility to the Chinese race and nationality.