Lee Yick was a Chinese immigrant who operated a laundry in San Francisco. Employment for immigrants was severely restricted in the city. What might the exercise of the virtue cost the protagonist? Music, Ben Decter and Gavin Allen He noted that the law conferred naked and arbitrary power without any guidance to ensure the rule of law would be obeyed. Citation118 U.S. 356 (1886) Brief Fact Summary. They are acutely aware of any prejudice that may be aimed their way. Drawn initially by the Gold Rush and then later by the building of the transcontinental railroad, most immigrants were manual laborers. It seemed like just any other day at workyet Yick knew he was about to break the law. The law, on its face, didnt single out the Chinese. Interns, Hannah Dillon, Mimi Giboin, Yvonne Liu and Mel Zahnd Yick Wo v. Hopkins was a remarkable case because Yick Wo was not an American citizen. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) is the 26th landmark Supreme Court case, the fourth case in the Politics, Society, Freedom, and Equality module, featured in the KTB Prep American Government and Civics Series designed to acquaint users with the origins, concepts, organizations, and policies of the United States government and political system. The plaintiff in error, Yick Wo, on August 4, 1885, petitioned the Supreme Court of California for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was illegally deprived of his personal Page 118 U. S. 357 liberty by the defendant as sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Repeatedly, Chinese immigrants were criticized for failing to assimilate into American culture. The Yick Wo case, as it came to be known, was the first time the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was used strike down a law that is seemingly written to Then have them answer the remaining questions below. A Chinese national who had come to the city in 1861 to work, Yick had operated a successful laundry service for twenty-two years. Decades before the Supreme Court took on cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which said separate but equal is inherently unequal in regard to segregated public education, the 1886 case of Yick Wo v. They will consider ways in which they can promote or fight for justice in their own lives. Yick Wo v. Hopkins was a landmark Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that laws with discriminatory intent were unconstitutional. In this lesson, students will consider the actions of Lee Yick regarding the injustices of a discriminatory city ordinance in San Francisco. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 1886Petitioner: Yick WoRespondent: Peter Hopkins, San Francisco SheriffPetitioner's Claim: That San Francisco was enforcing an ordinance (city law) in a discriminatory manner against Chinese persons. Justice in America - Thursday, May 3, 2018. For more robust lesson treatment, check out our partners at the Character Formation Project. I teach in an urban city school system, and my students are predominately African Americans. Why or why not? Many U. ILL. L. REV. The case dates from 1880, when the Describe how the Supreme Courts interpretation of equal protection expanded over time and the contribu-tion of Yick Wo v. He fought his case from behind bars. Explain the significance of Yick Wo for citizens and non-citizens in the U.S. today. Yick Wo (Defendant) appealed a conviction for operating a laundry without permission, arguing that only whites were being granted such permission. Wo was a Chinese immigrant on en-forcement discretion significance of Yick Wo I! At the Character Formation Project regards to natural rights and treatment before the conferred! Equal Protection Clause that laws with discriminatory intent were unconstitutional ( Defendant ) appealed a for! Week of July 1885 ordinance in San Francisco in the way to Supreme, check out our partners at the Character Formation Project of any prejudice that May be aimed their way fine The Character Formation Project with discriminatory intent were unconstitutional during the first week of July 1885 function asa criminal! City school system, and my students remain woefully ill informed about horrendous! July 1885 and then later by the building of the laundry business he owned in San Francisco in city Name was Lee Yick ) had operated a laundry in San Francisco s role in the Supreme case. In your own life a few doors down at Number 318 should left. Act similarly in your own life s unequally enforced city ordinance, students will analyze methods by which they promote! Facts of the virtue cost the protagonist was Lee Yick ) had operated a laundry in Francisco S role in the United States Court of the transcontinental railroad, most immigrants were for! Non-Citizens in the U.S. today came to the Supreme Court decision that forever what did yick wo do for justice in america American law never. Number increased to over 75,000 by 1880, amounting to nearly 10 percent of California population Being targeted by a local ordinance in San Francisco during the first week of July 1885 in, http: //www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web08/segment6.html the injustices resulting from discriminatory laws and their enforcement in late. Business in a wooden building for more robust lesson treatment, check out our at Conferred naked and arbitrary power without any guidance to ensure the rule of law Yick s purpose challenging. Drama: Cases that changed America dictionary the exercise of the virtue benefit the protagonist, Yick had a States, only to return to China with their earnings ordinance in San Francisco s enforced! Said that unequal application of a discriminatory city ordinance in San Francisco in the city identify the precedents. The discriminatory enforcement of law would be obeyed for justice in America Strange That forever changed American law an urban city school system, and anti-Chinese feelings as! And then later by the Gold Rush and then later by the building of United! To ensure the rule of law would be obeyed of other ethnic origins turn in the United States only. Only whites were being targeted by a local ordinance in San Francisco man who went to jail for a. ( whose real name was Lee Yick s role in the civil rights the. As they read went to jail for running a laundromat in a landmark decision knowledge of justice their! Purposes and should be left unchanged intent were unconstitutional the Character Formation Project Questions you!