How did the 14th Amendment protect Yick Wo?

How did the 14th Amendment protect Yick Wo?

It was the first case to use the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The owner of Yick Wo laundry was charged with violating the law after he continued to run his business without a permit.

What was the significance of the Yick Wo case?

In Yick Wo, the Supreme Court proclaimed that even if a law was non-discriminatory, enforcing the law in a discriminatory manner was unconstitutional. On 26 May 1880 the city of San Francisco enacted an ordinance requiring all commercial laundries to be in brick or stone buildings.

How the Yick Wo v Hopkins cased use the 14th Amendment to protect Yick Wo’s due process and equal protection?

Yick Wo and the Equal Protection Clause This documentary examines the case Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) in which the Supreme Court held that noncitizens have due process rights under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Court said that unequal application of a law violated the rights of a Chinese immigrant.

Why Yick Wo not being a citizen was important in interpreting the 14th Amendment?

He took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause – because of the unequal application of the law. Yick Wo was not an American citizen – because by law he wasn’t allowed to be.

What was Yick Wo v Hopkins focus on?

Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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?

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.

Who won the Yick Wo case?

Lee Yick
May 10, 1886: Lee Yick Wins Equal Protection Under the Law Case. On May 10, 1886, Lee Yick won a Supreme Court case that said that all people — citizens and non-citizens — had equal protection under the law. Lee Yick and Wo Lee, Chinese immigrants, ran laundries in San Francisco.

What happened in Yick Wo v Hopkins?

What did Yick Wo do for justice in America?

Yick Wo refused to shut down his business and was arrested. He fought his case from behind bars. He took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause – because of the unequal application of the law.

However, by the 1950s, the Warren Court used the principle established in Yick Wo to strike down several attempts by states and municipalities in the Deep South to limit the political rights of blacks. Yick Wo has been cited in well over 150 Supreme Court cases since it was decided. Yick Wo is cited in Hirabayashi v.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Yick Wo v Hopkins?

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What does Yick Wo stand for?

Yick Wo (益和, Pinyin: Yì Hé, Cantonese Yale: Yik1 Wo6, Americanization: Lee Yick), was a laundry facility owned by Lee Yick. Lee Yick immigrated to California in 1861.

Are Chinese laundry owners entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment?

Even though the Chinese laundry owners were usually not American citizens, the court ruled they were still entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Matthews also noted that the court had previously ruled that it was acceptable to hold administrators of the law liable when they abused their authority.