Yick Wo v. Hopkins Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Yick Wo v. Hopkins Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Yick Wo v. Hopkins | 118 U.S. 356 (1886) Countless statutes governing our daily lives, by their terms, don’t discriminate against people based on their race or other factors prohibited by the Constitution. Yet government officials who enforce such laws may apply them differently to different people based on such characteristics. Does the Constitution prohibit such unequal application of laws that, on their face, don’t discriminate? The United States Supreme Court first addressed this issue, along with the threshold question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on alienage or nationality, in Yick Wo versus Hopkins. Yick Wo and Wo Lee were Chinese citizens who resided in San Francisco in the 1800s. They were among over two hundred Chinese nationals living in San Francisco who ran commercial laundries. In 1880, San Francisco enacted an ordinance that required laundry operators whose businesses were in wooden buildings to obtain permits from the fire warden. Virtually all laundries in the city operated in wooden buildings. Initially, Yick Wo and Wo Lee were granted permits after their laundries were deemed safe by the fire warden. They maintained their laundries in the same safe conditions thereafter. However, by 1885, when they applied for permit renewals, the fire warden denied them permits, while also denying permits to all but one of the other two hundred and thirty-eight Chinese laundry operators. At the same time, the fire warden granted permits to eighty of the eighty-one non-Chinese laundry operators in the city. Yick Wo and Wo Lee continued to operate their laundries after being denied permits. They were convicted of violating the ordinance requiring a permit and were fined. After both refused to pay the fines, a municipal court judge ordered them to be incarcerated in lieu of paying the fines. Yick Wo appealed to the California Supreme Court, which affirmed his conviction. Wo Lee filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal circuit court, which denied him relief. Both men then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/yick-wo... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/yick-wo... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries