Facts
- San Francisco enacted an ordinance making it unlawful to operate a laundry in a wooden building without the consent of the Board of Supervisors, while exempting laundries in brick or stone buildings.
- The ordinance provided no substantive standards to guide the Board’s decision to grant or deny consent.
- Yick Wo, a Chinese subject, had long operated a laundry in a wooden building under prior licensing and inspections and previously obtained a permit, but his renewal request was denied.
- Yick Wo continued operating without renewed consent, was fined, refused to pay, and was jailed.
- Of roughly 320 laundries in wooden buildings, about 240 were Chinese-owned; nearly all non-Chinese applicants received permits, while almost none of the Chinese applicants did.
- Yick Wo sought habeas corpus relief in state court, arguing that his detention rested on discriminatory enforcement violating the Fourteenth Amendment; relief was denied, and he sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a facially neutral licensing ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when administered with racial discrimination through standardless discretion.
- Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to non-citizens physically present within the United States.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed and held that Yick Wo was entitled to discharge from custody.
- The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee applies to all persons within U.S. territorial jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, race, or nationality.
- The Court held that even if a law is neutral on its face, discriminatory administration by public officials that produces unjust racial distinctions denies equal protection.
- The Court concluded that the ordinance’s standardless licensing scheme, coupled with the stark pattern of disparate permit outcomes, showed unconstitutional discrimination in enforcement.
Legal Principles
- Equal protection is a personal right extended to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, not limited to citizens.
- A facially neutral law violates equal protection when applied “with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” creating unjust discrimination among similarly situated persons.
- Licensing regimes regulating lawful businesses may be invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment when they vest unbounded discretionary power to grant or withhold permission without legal standards and are used to impose racial discrimination.
- Local police powers (including public safety regulation) do not permit enforcement practices that impose arbitrary and unjust racial distinctions.
Conclusion
The Court held that a neutral licensing ordinance, administered through standardless discretion to deny permits almost exclusively to Chinese laundry operators, denied equal protection, and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects non-citizens as well as citizens within U.S. jurisdiction.