In 1880s San Francisco, if you wanted to wash clothes for a living, you basically needed the city government’s permission to exist. Specifically, if your laundry was in a wooden building—which almost all of them were—you had to get a permit from the Board of Supervisors. On paper, it looked like a fire safety rule. In reality, it was a weapon. This is the backdrop of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case that started with soap suds and ended up becoming one of the most important building blocks of American civil rights law. It’s the reason the government can't just pass a "neutral" law and then use it to target people they don't like.
Lee Yick had been running his laundry facility on Bay View Avenue for twenty-two years. He had all his certificates from the fire wardens and the health officers. Everything was up to code. But when he applied for the mandatory permit required by the new city ordinance, he was turned down. So were about 200 other Chinese laundry owners. Meanwhile, out of the 80 or so non-Chinese laundry owners who applied for the same permit under the same conditions, all but one were approved.
It wasn't a coincidence. It was a purge.
The Law That Wasn't Really a Law
The San Francisco ordinance didn't mention race. It just said that you couldn't operate a laundry in a wooden building without consent from the Board of Supervisors. That’s a classic "facially neutral" law. If you read it, you might think, "Hey, that sounds reasonable. Wood burns. Fires are bad." But the Yick Wo v. Hopkins case forced the Supreme Court to look past the text and at the actual scoreboard.
When Lee Yick and his contemporary Wo Lee (whose cases were consolidated) refused to close their shops or pay the fines, they were thrown in jail. They didn't just sit there. They sued. They argued that their 14th Amendment rights—specifically the Equal Protection Clause—were being shredded. At the time, this was a bold move. The 14th Amendment was relatively new, ratified in 1868, and many people still thought it only applied to formerly enslaved Black people in the South.
The California Supreme Court actually sided with the city. They basically said the Board of Supervisors had the "discretion" to hand out permits however they saw fit. But the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice T. Stanley Matthews, saw right through the charade. In 1886, they issued a unanimous ruling that changed everything.
💡 You might also like: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
"An Evil Eye and an Unequal Hand"
Justice Matthews wrote something that law students still have to memorize today. He said that even if a law is fair on its face, if it is applied "with an evil eye and an unequal hand," it is still a violation of the Constitution. You can’t hide discrimination behind a mask of administrative discretion.
Think about that for a second. The court was saying that the intent and the application of a law matter just as much as the words on the page. In San Francisco, the board was using a safety rule to create a monopoly for white business owners while systematically destroying the livelihoods of Chinese immigrants.
"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." — Justice T. Stanley Matthews
The court also clarified something massive: the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. The amendment says no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It doesn't say "citizen." Lee Yick wasn't a U.S. citizen; he was a subject of the Emperor of China. The Court ruled that it didn't matter. If you are on American soil, the Constitution protects you from arbitrary government bullying.
Why This Wasn't Just About Laundry
Honestly, the context of the 1880s makes this ruling even more shocking. This was the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Anti-Chinese sentiment was at a fever pitch. There were riots. There was systemic violence. For a unanimous Supreme Court to step in and say, "No, you can't do this to these specific immigrants," was a rare moment of judicial backbone during a very dark period of American history.
📖 Related: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
It set the stage for almost every major civil rights victory that followed. When we talk about "disparate impact" today—the idea that a policy might be discriminatory because it hits one group harder than another, even if it doesn't name that group—we are talking about the ghost of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
- It was cited in the fight against Jim Crow laws.
- It helped dismantle discriminatory jury selection.
- It's used today in cases involving everything from redistricting to "stop and frisk" policies.
Without this case, the government could theoretically pass a law saying "no one wearing a blue shirt can vote," and then only arrest people in specific neighborhoods for wearing blue. Yick Wo stopped that loophole before it could swallow the 14th Amendment whole.
The Reality of Administrative Discretion
The case also warns us about "discretion." When a government official has the power to say "yes" or "no" without providing a clear, objective reason why, that is where corruption and bias live. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors thought they could just say "no" to the Chinese laundrymen because they felt like it.
The Court called this out as "sovereignty of the pure type," which is basically a fancy way of saying "tyranny." In a constitutional republic, officials aren't supposed to have the power of a king to just pick favorites. There have to be rules. There has to be a "why."
Common Misconceptions About the Case
Some people think Yick Wo v. Hopkins struck down the fire safety law itself. It didn't. The city was perfectly allowed to regulate wooden buildings. What the Court struck down was the discriminatory enforcement. You can have the law; you just can't use it as a club against one specific group.
👉 See also: When Does Joe Biden's Term End: What Actually Happened
Another misconception is that this case immediately fixed things for Chinese immigrants. It didn't. History is messy. While this was a win in the courts, the social and political persecution continued for decades. However, it provided a legal shield that lawyers could—and did—use to push back against the most egregious attempts to legislate people out of existence.
What You Can Learn From Lee Yick
Lee Yick wasn't a lawyer. He was a guy who ran a laundry. But he was also someone who knew his rights and was willing to risk his freedom to challenge a system that was rigged against him. He spent time in a cell so that the principle of "Equal Protection" would actually mean something.
When you look at modern legal battles, you see the fingerprints of this 1886 laundry case everywhere. Whether it's tech companies complaining about "arbitrary" regulation or civil rights groups challenging voting maps, the core question remains the same: Is the government applying the rules fairly, or is it using an "evil eye"?
Actionable Insights for Today
If you ever find yourself dealing with government bureaucracy or local ordinances that seem unfairly applied, here is the "Yick Wo" playbook for understanding your position:
- Document the Disparity: The only reason Lee Yick won was because he had the numbers. He showed that 200 Chinese applicants were denied and 80 white applicants were approved. Data is your best friend when fighting discrimination.
- Look for "Absolute Discretion": If a law gives an official the power to decide your fate without giving a reason or following a specific checklist, it might be unconstitutional.
- Check the "Personhood" Status: Remember that the 14th Amendment protects persons, not just citizens. This is a vital distinction in immigration law and for non-citizen residents.
- Identify the Facially Neutral Trap: Just because a rule doesn't mention a specific group doesn't mean it isn't targeting them. Always ask: Who does this rule actually affect in practice?
The next time you see a news story about a local council using "zoning laws" to shut down a specific type of business or a "safety regulation" that only seems to apply to one side of town, remember the laundrymen of San Francisco. They proved that the Constitution isn't just a piece of paper; it's a tool that can be used to force the "unequal hand" of the law back into its pocket.
Stay informed about your local ordinances. Watch how they are enforced. If you see a pattern of "selective enforcement," you aren't just seeing a quirk of bureaucracy—you're seeing a constitutional crisis in miniature. Use the history of Yick Wo v. Hopkins as a reminder that the law must apply to everyone equally, or it isn't really law at all.