Yick Wo vs. Hopkins_Digest

YICK WO V. HOPKINS

18 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886). Facts  Yick Wo was imprisoned for operating a laundry in a wooden building in violation of a San Francisco statute.  That statute vested in the board of supervisors supervisors the discretion discretion to grant or withhold licenses to operate laundries in wooden buildings. Yick Wo had operated the laundry in the same building for 22 years and re wardens and safety inspectors had inspected the premises and found them safe. The board denied licenses to all hinese!"merican applicants but denied only one of #$ non!hinese "mericans.  Yick Wo was ned ten dollars and was imprisoned for failing to pay. pay. Yick Wo sued the Supreme Supreme ourt of  alifornia for a writ of habeas corpus and the ourt found that the board of supervisors had acted within the scope of its authority and denied the petition. The Supreme ourt of the %nited States granted certiorari. Issues &. 'ay a city enforce enforce an ordinanc ordinance e in a racially racially discriminatory discriminatory manner( manner( 2. )oes a law or ordinance ordinance granting granting a person or entity entity absolute discretion discretion to grant grant or deny permission permission to carry on a lawful business violate the Fourteenth "mendment to the %.S. onstitution( Holdi! ad "ule (#att$e%s) &. *o. " city may not enforce enforce ordinances ordinances in a racially discriminatory discriminatory manner manner.. 2. Yes. " law or ordinance granting granting a person or entity absolute absolute discretion discretion to grant or deny permission permission to carry on a lawful business violates the Fourteenth "mendment to the %.S. onstitution. +f the statute were discriminatory on its face the court would have applied strict scrutiny. +n this case however the statute was not discrimina discriminatory tory on its face and the court court looked looked to rational rational basis. basis. The statute was ostensibly intended to reduce the risk of re, however the court also noted that only hinese laundries were a-ected by the statute. The court concluded that the statute was intended to reduce hinese laundries rather than the risk of re and ruled that the statute was invalid under the )ue rocess lause of the Fourteenth "mendment. &is'ositio For Yick Wo.