Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Background
Yick Wo () was a laundry facility owned by Lee Yick, an immigrant from China who moved to San Francisco in 1861. Yick ran the laundry for 22 years and held a license from the Board of Fire Wardens and a certificate of inspection from the city health officer without issue. In 1880, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance making it illegal to operate a laundry in a wooden building without a permit from the Board. Under the new ordinance, Yick was granted a license in 1884 to operate his laundry facility in the wooden building where he was located.
Yick's application for renewal of his permit in June 1885 was denied, not allowing him to continue operating his laundry in a wooden building. When his original permit expired in October 1885 he was required by law to shut down. However, he refused to close down his business and was convicted for violating the ordinance. He was fined ten dollars and imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine. When Sheriff Peter Hopkins arrested Lee Yick, he booked him under the name Yick Wo, mistakenly assuming this name from the name displayed on Yick’s laundry. After he was imprisoned, on August 24, 1885, he petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Of 320 laundries operated in wooden buildings, in San Francisco at the time, over 200 were owned by Chinese. When the 200 Chinese owned laundry owners tried to renew their permits, only one permit was granted. Whereas, the non-Chinese applicants with the exception of one, all were granted.
San Francisco ordinance
Order No. 156, passed May 26, 1880