## Facts

- Wong Wai, a Chinese national residing in San Francisco, sued on behalf of himself and other Chinese residents to stop compulsory inoculation with “Haffkine Prophylactic.”
- San Francisco’s acting Board of Health adopted a resolution requiring inoculation of all Chinese residents and restricting them from leaving the city unless they complied.
- The Board and a federal quarantine officer enforced the policy by restraining Chinese residents within San Francisco and preventing travel to other parts of California.
- The policy did not impose comparable inoculation or travel restrictions on non-Chinese residents living and working in the same city.
- Wong Wai alleged there was no adequate basis to claim plague exposure as to him or to justify targeting Chinese residents, and that the serum was dangerous and caused severe reactions.
- Under the San Francisco charter, legislative power was vested in the Board of Supervisors, and legislative acts were required to be enacted by ordinance; the Board of Health primarily implemented health ordinances and managed health institutions.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of equity may enjoin health officials from enforcing restrictions that unlawfully interfere with residents’ ability to travel and pursue lawful business.
2. Whether the San Francisco Board of Health had authority under the city charter to impose compulsory inoculation and travel restraints without an ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors.
3. Whether compulsory inoculation and travel restrictions applied only to Chinese or other “Asiatic” persons violated constitutional protections of personal liberty and equality by lacking uniform operation and reasonable relation to a public-health purpose.

## Decision

- The court granted an injunction restraining the Board of Health and the federal quarantine officer from forcibly inoculating Wong Wai and other Chinese residents.
- The court enjoined defendants from imprisoning, restraining, or confining Chinese residents within San Francisco for failure to submit to inoculation.
- The court enjoined interference with Chinese residents’ right to travel from San Francisco to other parts of California.
- The court held that equity jurisdiction was proper because the right to travel for lawful business had pecuniary value and the threatened harm was irreparable.
- The court concluded the Board of Health lacked legislative authority to impose the challenged measures absent an authorizing ordinance from the Board of Supervisors.
- The court found the measures impermissible because they singled out Chinese residents, were not uniform in operation, and were not shown to be reasonably adapted to the asserted public-health objective.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court in equity may enjoin health officials from enforcing unlawful restraints on movement and lawful business activity when the restraint causes irreparable injury and damages are inadequate.
- Local health authorities acting without proper legislative authorization are subject to judicial review; measures adopted by executive officers cannot substitute for required legislative enactments.
- Public-health measures must respect constitutional rights, operate uniformly rather than discriminatorily, and bear a reasonable relation to protecting public health.
- Race-based or ethnicity-based public-health restrictions require a demonstrated, non-speculative justification and cannot be sustained where comparable risks exist across the general population.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined enforcement of compulsory inoculation and travel restrictions that targeted Chinese residents, holding the Board of Health acted beyond its charter authority and that the non-uniform, discriminatory measures were not constitutionally permissible public-health regulations.


Wong Wai v. Williamson, 103 F. 1 (C.C.N.D. Cal. 1900)