Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Citation and Court
118 U.S. 356 (1886). United States Supreme Court. Justice Matthews, writing for a unanimous Court.
Facts
San Francisco enacted an ordinance requiring laundries operating in wooden buildings to obtain a permit from the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance was facially neutral — it did not mention race or national origin. In practice, the Board denied permits to virtually all Chinese applicants (approximately 200) while granting permits to nearly all non-Chinese applicants (approximately 80). Yick Wo, a Chinese national who had operated a laundry lawfully for twenty-two years, was imprisoned for operating without a permit and filed a petition for habeas corpus.
Issue
Does a facially neutral law that is applied in a systematically discriminatory manner against a racial or ethnic group violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
Yes. Even though the San Francisco ordinance was neutral on its face, its discriminatory enforcement against Chinese operators while granting permits to similarly situated non-Chinese operators constituted a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule / Doctrine
Discriminatory Application of Facially Neutral Laws: The Equal Protection Clause is violated not only by laws that discriminate on their face but also by the discriminatory enforcement of neutral laws. When a law is administered with an evil eye and an unequal hand, making unjust and illegal discriminations among persons in similar circumstances, the denial of equal justice is within the prohibition of the Constitution.
Significance
Yick Wo is one of the earliest and most important equal protection decisions of the Supreme Court. It established that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, not only citizens — a critical holding for immigrant communities. More fundamentally, it created the principle that discriminatory enforcement of facially neutral laws violates equal protection, which remains vital in modern equal protection and racial justice litigation. It is also a significant early case recognizing the constitutional rights of Asian Americans.