YICK WO V HOPKINS 118 U.S 356 1886 YICK WO V HOPKINS U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL BUSINESS/COMMERCE U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT APPLIED TO ALL PERSONS CITIZENS AND NONCITIZENS IN ADDITION THE COURT RULED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT APPLIED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BACKGROUND IN 1885 THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA PASSED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING LAUNDRIES TO OBTAIN A LICENSE FOR OPERATION FROM THE CITY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VIOLATORS FACED A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION A 1000 FINE AND UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL THE LEGISLATION WAS DIRECTLY AIMED AT CHINESE IMMIGRANTS LAUNDRIES IN BRICK BUILDINGS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE ORDINANCE CHINESE LAUNDRIES WHICH DOMINATED THE INDUSTRY WERE THE ONLY LAUNDRIES OPERATING OUT OF WOODEN BUILDINGS YICK WO HAD OPERATED A LAUNDRY IN SAN FRANCISCO FOR OVER 20 YEARS HIS LAUNDRY HAD PASSED INSPECTION THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT IN EARLY 1885 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DENIED LICENSES TO HIM AND TWO HUNDRED OTHER CHINESE OPERATORS THAT SUMMER WO AND OTHER CHINESE LAUNDRY OWNERS CONTINUED TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES IN ORDER TO TEST THE CITY ORDINANCE WO WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO JAIL WO ARGUED THAT THE LAW VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HE SHOWED EVIDENCE THAT ONLY 25 PERCENT OF LAUNDRIES HAD BEEN GRANTED LICENSES AND THAT ONLY ONE OF THESE WAS CHINESE OWNED THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ARGUED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT APPLY TO THE POLICE POWERS OF A STATE OR CITY DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON APRIL 14 1886 AND DECIDED ON MAY 10 1886 BY A VOTE OF 9 TO 0 JUSTICE STANLEY MATTHEWS SPOKE FOR THE COURT WHICH RULED IN FAVOR OF WO MATTHEWS ARGUED THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE WENT BEYOND THE TRADITIONAL POLICE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT IN ADDITION THE LAW DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ONE GROUP AND WAS THUS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE COURT RULED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS CITIZENS AND ALIENS ALIKE EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IT APPEARS THAT BOTH PETITIONERS HAVE COMPLIED WITH EVERY REQUISITE DEEMED BY THE LAW OR BY THE PUBLIC OFFICERS CHARGED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY FROM FIRE OR AS A PRECAUTION AGAINST INJURY TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH NO REASON WHATEVER EXCEPT THE WILL OF THE SUPERVISORS IS ASSIGNED WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CARRY ON IN THE ACCUSTOMED MANNER THEIR HARMLESS AND USEFUL OCCUPATION ON WHICH THEY DEPEND FOR A LIVELIHOOD THE FACT OF THIS DISCRIMINATION IS ADMITTED NO REASON FOR IT IS SHOWN AND THE CONCLUSION CANNOT BE RESISTED THAT NO REASON FOR IT EXISTS EXCEPT HOSTILITY TO THE RACE AND NATIONALITY TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS BELONG AND WHICH IN THE EYE OF THE LAW IS NOT JUSTIFIED THE DISCRIMINATION IS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION WHICH ENFORCES IT IS A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
