3-13-08 Notes - Equal protection; no state should deny...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Yick Wo vs Hopkins (US Supreme Court 1886) Key Concepts Anticipation of Equal Protection Echo of Ho Ah Kow (1879) Key Names Yick Wo Associate Justice Stanley Matthews Key Analysis Neutral Face Unequal Hands Unfulfilled: o Yick Wo (1886) to Plessy (1896) Yick Wo was eligible to get a license for hand laundry because he had run a stable business for 25 years, fire safety should’ve passed o Chinese in general were considered dangerous in terms of their use of fire Spring 1876 California state legislature made a special committee to investigate the social, economic, and moral effects of Chinese immigration o A fire insurance agent wasn’t willing to write fire insurance policies for Chinese because he was scared that hostile whites would set Chinese’s houses on fire Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (another surprise victory after Ho Ah Kow) o Filed for not licensing hand laundry for Yick Wo 9 vs. 0 in favor of Yick Wo o Associate Justice Stanley Matthews used 14 th Amendment Section 1 (ratified 1868 but was first used in 1873)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Equal protection; no state should deny people’s equal protection of the law This law could apply to non-citizens Found the hand laundry licensing ordinance offensive; is “naked and arbitrary power” Echo of Ho Ah Kow (Steven Johnson Fields- even though it wasn’t explicit, he knew the cultural background of the hair-cut ordinance) Even though the licensing law was fair on its face, if it is applied with an evil eye and an unequal hand by a public authority, the denial of legal justice is under constitution The trend wouldn’t continue until 1950s; could’ve been a promising start to civil rights revolution o Looked for racial discrimination • 1896 Supreme Court determined that those cases did not offend: Jim Crow Segregation and Plessy vs. Ferguson o Separate assignment of seats for different races on train; that didn’t offend but was a foundation to racial discriminatory laws • 15 Chinese Exclusion Laws; 4 passed in 1882, 1888, 1902...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/02/2008 for the course AAS 224 taught by Professor Jew during the Spring '08 term at University of Wisconsin Colleges Online.

Page1 / 2

3-13-08 Notes - Equal protection; no state should deny...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online