## Facts

- Ho Ah Kow, a Chinese resident of San Francisco, was convicted under a California “cubic air” lodging-house statute and, after failing to pay a $10 fine, was sentenced to five days in the county jail.
- San Francisco had enacted an ordinance requiring every male person imprisoned in the county jail under criminal judgment to have his hair cut or clipped to one inch from the scalp upon arrival, and directing the sheriff to enforce it.
- While Ho Ah Kow was in custody, Sheriff Nunan cut off Ho Ah Kow’s queue (braided hair worn in accordance with Chinese custom).
- Ho Ah Kow alleged the queue had major cultural and religious significance; its removal was regarded as disgraceful, caused ostracism among Chinese residents, and, according to his religious beliefs, brought misfortune after death.
- Ho Ah Kow sued the sheriff for damages, alleging the sheriff acted knowingly and maliciously; the sheriff asserted justification based on the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether the municipal ordinance requiring male prisoners’ hair to be cut was within the Board of Supervisors’ statutory authority as an additional punishment or as a sanitary regulation.
2. Whether the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment by operating as hostile, class-based legislation aimed at Chinese prisoners.

## Decision

- The court held the ordinance invalid as beyond the municipal authority granted to the Board of Supervisors and therefore not a legal justification for the sheriff’s conduct.
- The court further held the ordinance unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because it was directed in practice at Chinese prisoners and imposed a degrading punishment as hostile discrimination against a class.
- The court awarded damages to Ho Ah Kow.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal body has only the powers granted by statute; it cannot impose additional punishment on persons already sentenced under state law without statutory authorization.
- Measures framed as jail administration or sanitation cannot be upheld where their function is punitive and not reasonably tied to security or legitimate health necessity, especially where statutory responsibility for jail sanitation is assigned elsewhere.
- The Equal Protection Clause protects “any person” within a state’s jurisdiction, including non-citizens, from hostile, discriminating legislation that targets a racial or ethnic class.
- Governmental convenience (such as coercing payment of fines) does not justify degrading, class-targeted punishments.

## Conclusion

The court imposed civil liability on the sheriff because the hair-cutting requirement was an unauthorized municipal punishment and, as applied, a discriminatory and degrading measure aimed at Chinese prisoners in violation of equal protection.


Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879)