118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Yick Wo and Wo Lee were Chinese subjects operating laundries in San Francisco.1 Both petitioners complied with every requisite deemed necessary by law or public officers for the protection of neighboring property from fire and against injury to the public health.2
The ordinances of the supervisors of the county and city of San Francisco conferred upon the supervisors a naked and arbitrary power to grant or withhold consent without reference to the personal character or qualifications of applicants or the adaptation of the buildings.3 They did not point to a regulation of the business of keeping and conducting laundries with a view to protection against fire.4
Applications for consent submitted by Yick Wo, Wo Lee, and more than two hundred other Chinese subjects were denied by the supervisors.5 At the same time, eighty individuals who were not Chinese subjects received permission to carry on the same business under similar conditions.6
Yick Wo was convicted and imprisoned for violating the ordinances.7 His case was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error from the Supreme Court of California.8 Wo Lee's parallel case advanced through the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California. The matters reached the Supreme Court of the United States for review of federal questions arising under the Constitution and treaties.9
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens and subjects of foreign nations within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?10
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.11 These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of race, color, or nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.12
Yes. The amendment's text refers to any person rather than limiting its reach to citizens.13 Yick Wo and Wo Lee, subjects of the Emperor of China who operated laundries in wooden buildings in San Francisco, were within the territorial jurisdiction when the ordinances were enforced against them through criminal convictions and imprisonment.14 The 1880 treaty between the United States and China further obligates the federal government to secure to Chinese subjects the same rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens or subjects of the most favored nation.15
Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes reinforces this by guaranteeing all persons the same rights to make contracts, sue, and receive the full and equal benefit of laws for the security of persons and property as white citizens enjoy.16 Because the amendment and statute extend protections universally, the petitioners may invoke them on equal terms with citizens.17
The Fourteenth Amendment applies to the petitioners as aliens within the jurisdiction.18
Whether the San Francisco laundry ordinances are void on their face under the Fourteenth Amendment?19
An ordinance that confers upon a board of supervisors a naked and arbitrary power to grant or withhold consent to the operation of laundries in wooden buildings does so without reference to the personal character or qualifications of applicants or the adaptation of the buildings.20 It divides owners into classes by mere will rather than prescribing a rule and conditions to which all similarly situated may conform.21
No. The ordinances do not on their face prescribe a rule and conditions for the regulation of laundry use to which all similarly situated may conform.22 Instead they allow unrestricted use of brick or stone buildings while placing wooden buildings, which constitute nearly all those previously in use, under an arbitrary line that permits some persons to pursue the occupation only by the supervisors' will and withholds consent from others at mere pleasure.23 Both classes become tenants at will under the supervisors.24 Although this structure differs from valid police regulations that apply alike to all persons similarly situated, the court examined the actual administration rather than declaring facial invalidity alone sufficient to void the ordinances.25
The ordinances are not void on their face under the Fourteenth Amendment.26
Whether the ordinances are void by reason of their administration operating unequally so as to punish the petitioners while permitting the same conduct by others similarly situated?27
A law may be fair on its face and impartial in appearance.28 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 violates the Fourteenth Amendment.29
Yes. Both petitioners complied with every requisite deemed necessary by law or public officers for protection of neighboring property from fire and against injury to public health.30 No reason except the will of the supervisors was assigned for denying consent to Yick Wo, Wo Lee, and more than two hundred other Chinese subjects.31 At the same time the supervisors granted permission to eighty non-Chinese persons to carry on the same business under similar conditions.32
The fact of this discrimination is admitted and no reason for it is shown.33 The administration therefore operated unequally by punishing the petitioners for conduct permitted to others similarly situated.34
The ordinances are void by reason of their administration operating unequally.35
Whether the administration of the ordinances denies the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by treaty?36
The administration of a law that denies to persons within the jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that withholds from Chinese subjects the rights guaranteed by treaty, constitutes a violation of the Constitution that renders imprisonment under the ordinances illegal.37
Yes. The supervisors' selective enforcement denied Yick Wo and Wo Lee the equal protection of the laws by withholding consent on the basis of race and nationality while granting it to others.38 This practical denial of equal justice occurred even though the petitioners had satisfied every fire and health requirement.39 The administration therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.40
Because the petitioners' imprisonment rests on this unconstitutional administration, it is illegal and they must be discharged.41
The administration of the ordinances denies the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by treaty.42