Marc Haru B.

Altavano I - Evening

Case #51: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356

Facts
The city of San Francisco passed an ordinance that required Laundromats
located in wooden buildings to have a permit. The ordinance established a
board which would decide who would and would not get the permit. The
facts suggest that not a single Chinese applicant was ever granted a permit,
despite the fact that Chinese operated Laundromats constituted nearly 90%
of the city’s laundry business at the time. The Plaintiffs were held in violation
of the ordinance and issued a fine. Plaintiffs then sued under the 14th
amendment, citing a violation of equal protection.

Issue
Does an ordinance that gives absolute discretion to a permit board that
discriminates on the basis of race in their eventual decision making violate
the equal protection clause of the United States?

Holding/Analysis
Yes, the ordinance is invalidated and the appeal ruling is overturned. The
court noted that the ordinance did not have any discrimination detectable
within its text. However, its enforcement did violate the equal protection
clause because its execution was racially unequal. The court held that the
new rule should be that the Supreme Court may shoot down state or local
laws that are neutral in their text, but discriminatory in their execution.

The court wrote that the enforcement of the law was “a practical denial by
the state of that equal protection of the law,” and, as such, was a violation of
the constitution. Moreover, the court also noted that equal protection is
afforded to non-citizens within US borders, as many of the Chinese
Laundromat operators were non-citizens.