March 10, 2026 • 9 mins
On this episode of Our American Stories, in the 1880s, San Francisco passed an ordinance regulating laundries that operated in wooden buildings. On paper, the law applied to everyone. In practice, city officials enforced it almost entirely against Chinese immigrant laundry owners.
One of those business owners was Yick Wo. When local authorities repeatedly denied him a permit to continue operating his laundry, he challenged the decision in court in what would soon become the landmark case Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
Kirk Higgins of the Bill of Rights Institute shares the story of the Chinese immigrant whose fight over a laundry business helped define equal protection in American constitutional law.
Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)
Support the show: https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
This is our American stories, gratified in eighteen sixty eight.
The fourteenth Amendment is one of the most important post
Founding Year additions to our Constitution. After all, it explicitly
gives everyone equal protection and due process under the law,
regardless of what state you're in or what race you
(00:32):
belong to. And you can thank a lot of that
to a Chinese laundry shop owner from San Francisco. Here
to share the story of the landmark Supreme Court decision
is Kirk Higgins, the vice president of Content at the
Bill of Rights Institute. Let's get into the story.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
It was July eighteen eighty five and businessman Lee Yick
strode down DuPont Street in San Francisco. The Chinese immigrant
was about to do something dangerous, something that could get
him arrested at any time. He was not going to
rob a bank, caristill a horse, or harm anyone. His
only so called crime going to work to open the
(01:17):
laundry business he had operated for more than two decades,
even if it meant going to jail. Chinese immigrants like
Yek played an important role in the settlement of the
American West during the mid eighteen hundreds. Many were drawn
to California by the gold Rush, and thousands of Chinese
immigrants helped build America's trans Continental Railroad, often in difficult
(01:41):
and dangerous condition. Some immigrants, like Yik found success in
operating service industries, such as laundries for the wave of
settlers to California. Yek established his business Yiku Laundry in
San Francisco in the eighteen sixties. It was one of
hundreds of these laundries in the city, but it was
about to become the most important. As the American economy
(02:06):
experienced a severe downturn in the eighteen seventies, many white
Californians blamed Chinese immigrants for taking away jobs, driving down wages,
and failing to assimilate. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors
began passing a series of regulations targeting laundries owned by
Chinese immigrants. Order Number one five six nine, passed on
(02:26):
May twenty sixth, eighteen eighty. On its surface, may not
have seemed controversial.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
It shall be unlawful from and after the passage of
this order for any person or persons to establish, maintain,
or carry on a laundry without having first obtained the
consent of the Board of Supervisors, except the same be
located in a building constructed either of brick or stone.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
No more wooden facilities. The purported reasoning was to reduce
the risk of fires, but there was a whole lot
more to the order than might appear at first. Blush first,
If San Francisco was looking to cut down on its
number of wooden buildings, that was likely news to San Franciscans.
Most of the buildings in the city were made of
wood at that time. Plus, Yick's laundry had been inspected
(03:12):
by the city and he had both fire and health certificates.
Yik woo laundry was not some underground operation. Rather, Order
number one five sixty nine seemed to take direct aim
at the laundries owned by Chinese immigrants. Of the more
than three hundred laundries in San Francisco, most were made
of wood. In about two thirds of the city's laundries
(03:33):
were Chinese owned. The true aim of the order became
apparent as it was implemented by the City of San Francisco.
Yik no longer had permission to operate his laundry, he
was not alone. Two hundred Chinese laundry owners petitioned the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors to continue operating their businesses.
(03:54):
All two hundred requests were denied. To make matters worse,
all but one of the eighty non Chinese laundry owners
who petitioned the city were allowed to continue to operate.
Yik refused to back down. He continued to operate his
laundry just as he had for more than twenty years.
When he was fined ten dollars by the city, he
(04:15):
refused to pay, was arrested and spent ten days in jail.
In fact, he was one of more than one hundred
and fifty Chinese laundry workers who were arrested for violating
the city's order. But he was going to take more
than a fine or threats of arrest to stop him.
He was fighting for his livelihood and his rights. Now
he was headed to court, he believed the City of
(04:40):
San Francisco was violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth
Amendment states that the Government may not.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States, Nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due the process of law, nor denied to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
There seemed to be a strong case that Yik and
his fellow Chinese business owners were being denied equal protection
under the law. After all, they were being ordered to
close their laundries while non Chinese owned laundries remained open. Unfortunately,
the Supreme Court of California disagreed. The court ruled that
the city of San Francisco had properly quote regulated the
(05:27):
places at which laundries should be established.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
And the character of the buildings in which they are
to be maintained.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
At this point, things were not looking promising for Yick
and his fellowly laundry owners. He had been ordered to
close his business, fined and arrested, and now he had
lost his case before the state's highest court. But he
was not ready to quit. He appealed to the United
States Supreme Court in what became the landmark case of
(05:58):
Yik Wo v. Hopkins. The Hopkins in this case was
Peter Hopkins, sheriff of the San Francisco Police Department and
the man responsible for enforcing the city's regulations on laundries.
They had a difficult task in front of them. Anti
Chinese sentiment remained high in some parts of the country,
and Yik had already lost before the Supreme Court of California.
In fact, California's highest court had refused to even consider
(06:21):
the constitutional issues he had raised, but the U. S.
Supreme Court had an entirely different view of the case.
In May eighteen eighty six, the Court released a unanimous
decision in favour of Yiq and his co plaintiff, ruling
that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. Justice Stanley
Matthews wrote a scathing opinion for the court in which
he claimed, though the.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Law it's self be fair on its face and impartial
in appearance, if it is applied and administrated by a
public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so
as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons
in similar circumstances material to their rights, tile of equal
justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. The
(07:05):
very idea that one man may be compelled to hold
his life, or the means of his living, or any
material right essential to the enjoyment of his life, at
the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in
any country where freedom prevails.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
The City of San Francisco had provided no reason whatever
that the Chinese laundry owners should not be able to continue.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Their harmless and useful occupation for which they depend on
a livelihood.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Matthews and the US Supreme Court ruled that the Chinese
laundries were only being closed because of quote.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Which in the eye of the law, is not justified.
The court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Yik
and his co plaintiff had been violated, that their imprisonment
had been illegal, and that the decision of the Supreme
Court California should be reversed. Ikuo Versus Hopkins became a
landmark case which has been cited more than one hundred
(08:09):
and fifty times since the decision was released, powerful reminders
that the law must protect us all equally for justice
to prevail.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Had a terrific job on the production, editing and storytelling
by our own Monte Montgomery, and a special thanks to
Kirk Higgins. He's the vice president of Content at the
Bill of Rights Institute. You can learn more about the
work they do, the important work they do at mybri
dot org. Because, folks, where the Constitution intersects with our
(08:40):
lives is in cases like this. These are real life
litigants ending up before the Supreme Court. And I remember
being in law school and this case. I just hated
the people of California for doing this to the Chinese,
for targeting them, and my goodness, in May of eighteen
eighty six, there was Reecort and there was justice. This
(09:01):
was a class of people getting discriminated against by the state,
and my goodness, this case has been cited one hundred
and fifty times. But again it's where the rubber hits
the road. The Constitution protects all of us from these
kinds of aggressions from the state. The story of the
Chinese laundry shop owner who changed American law forever here
(09:25):
on our American Stories.
This is our American stories, gratified in eighteen sixty eight.
The fourteenth Amendment is one of the most important post
Founding Year additions to our Constitution. After all, it explicitly
gives everyone equal protection and due process under the law,
regardless of what state you're in or what race you
(00:32):
belong to. And you can thank a lot of that
to a Chinese laundry shop owner from San Francisco. Here
to share the story of the landmark Supreme Court decision
is Kirk Higgins, the vice president of Content at the
Bill of Rights Institute. Let's get into the story.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
It was July eighteen eighty five and businessman Lee Yick
strode down DuPont Street in San Francisco. The Chinese immigrant
was about to do something dangerous, something that could get
him arrested at any time. He was not going to
rob a bank, caristill a horse, or harm anyone. His
only so called crime going to work to open the
(01:17):
laundry business he had operated for more than two decades,
even if it meant going to jail. Chinese immigrants like
Yek played an important role in the settlement of the
American West during the mid eighteen hundreds. Many were drawn
to California by the gold Rush, and thousands of Chinese
immigrants helped build America's trans Continental Railroad, often in difficult
(01:41):
and dangerous condition. Some immigrants, like Yik found success in
operating service industries, such as laundries for the wave of
settlers to California. Yek established his business Yiku Laundry in
San Francisco in the eighteen sixties. It was one of
hundreds of these laundries in the city, but it was
about to become the most important. As the American economy
(02:06):
experienced a severe downturn in the eighteen seventies, many white
Californians blamed Chinese immigrants for taking away jobs, driving down wages,
and failing to assimilate. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors
began passing a series of regulations targeting laundries owned by
Chinese immigrants. Order Number one five six nine, passed on
(02:26):
May twenty sixth, eighteen eighty. On its surface, may not
have seemed controversial.
Speaker 3 (02:32):
It shall be unlawful from and after the passage of
this order for any person or persons to establish, maintain,
or carry on a laundry without having first obtained the
consent of the Board of Supervisors, except the same be
located in a building constructed either of brick or stone.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
No more wooden facilities. The purported reasoning was to reduce
the risk of fires, but there was a whole lot
more to the order than might appear at first. Blush first,
If San Francisco was looking to cut down on its
number of wooden buildings, that was likely news to San Franciscans.
Most of the buildings in the city were made of
wood at that time. Plus, Yick's laundry had been inspected
(03:12):
by the city and he had both fire and health certificates.
Yik woo laundry was not some underground operation. Rather, Order
number one five sixty nine seemed to take direct aim
at the laundries owned by Chinese immigrants. Of the more
than three hundred laundries in San Francisco, most were made
of wood. In about two thirds of the city's laundries
(03:33):
were Chinese owned. The true aim of the order became
apparent as it was implemented by the City of San Francisco.
Yik no longer had permission to operate his laundry, he
was not alone. Two hundred Chinese laundry owners petitioned the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors to continue operating their businesses.
(03:54):
All two hundred requests were denied. To make matters worse,
all but one of the eighty non Chinese laundry owners
who petitioned the city were allowed to continue to operate.
Yik refused to back down. He continued to operate his
laundry just as he had for more than twenty years.
When he was fined ten dollars by the city, he
(04:15):
refused to pay, was arrested and spent ten days in jail.
In fact, he was one of more than one hundred
and fifty Chinese laundry workers who were arrested for violating
the city's order. But he was going to take more
than a fine or threats of arrest to stop him.
He was fighting for his livelihood and his rights. Now
he was headed to court, he believed the City of
(04:40):
San Francisco was violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth
Amendment states that the Government may not.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
Make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States, Nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due the process of law, nor denied to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
There seemed to be a strong case that Yik and
his fellow Chinese business owners were being denied equal protection
under the law. After all, they were being ordered to
close their laundries while non Chinese owned laundries remained open. Unfortunately,
the Supreme Court of California disagreed. The court ruled that
the city of San Francisco had properly quote regulated the
(05:27):
places at which laundries should be established.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
And the character of the buildings in which they are
to be maintained.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
At this point, things were not looking promising for Yick
and his fellowly laundry owners. He had been ordered to
close his business, fined and arrested, and now he had
lost his case before the state's highest court. But he
was not ready to quit. He appealed to the United
States Supreme Court in what became the landmark case of
(05:58):
Yik Wo v. Hopkins. The Hopkins in this case was
Peter Hopkins, sheriff of the San Francisco Police Department and
the man responsible for enforcing the city's regulations on laundries.
They had a difficult task in front of them. Anti
Chinese sentiment remained high in some parts of the country,
and Yik had already lost before the Supreme Court of California.
In fact, California's highest court had refused to even consider
(06:21):
the constitutional issues he had raised, but the U. S.
Supreme Court had an entirely different view of the case.
In May eighteen eighty six, the Court released a unanimous
decision in favour of Yiq and his co plaintiff, ruling
that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. Justice Stanley
Matthews wrote a scathing opinion for the court in which
he claimed, though the.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
Law it's self be fair on its face and impartial
in appearance, if it is applied and administrated by a
public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so
as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons
in similar circumstances material to their rights, tile of equal
justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. The
(07:05):
very idea that one man may be compelled to hold
his life, or the means of his living, or any
material right essential to the enjoyment of his life, at
the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in
any country where freedom prevails.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
The City of San Francisco had provided no reason whatever
that the Chinese laundry owners should not be able to continue.
Speaker 3 (07:29):
Their harmless and useful occupation for which they depend on
a livelihood.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
Matthews and the US Supreme Court ruled that the Chinese
laundries were only being closed because of quote.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Which in the eye of the law, is not justified.
The court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Yik
and his co plaintiff had been violated, that their imprisonment
had been illegal, and that the decision of the Supreme
Court California should be reversed. Ikuo Versus Hopkins became a
landmark case which has been cited more than one hundred
(08:09):
and fifty times since the decision was released, powerful reminders
that the law must protect us all equally for justice
to prevail.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Had a terrific job on the production, editing and storytelling
by our own Monte Montgomery, and a special thanks to
Kirk Higgins. He's the vice president of Content at the
Bill of Rights Institute. You can learn more about the
work they do, the important work they do at mybri
dot org. Because, folks, where the Constitution intersects with our
(08:40):
lives is in cases like this. These are real life
litigants ending up before the Supreme Court. And I remember
being in law school and this case. I just hated
the people of California for doing this to the Chinese,
for targeting them, and my goodness, in May of eighteen
eighty six, there was Reecort and there was justice. This
(09:01):
was a class of people getting discriminated against by the state,
and my goodness, this case has been cited one hundred
and fifty times. But again it's where the rubber hits
the road. The Constitution protects all of us from these
kinds of aggressions from the state. The story of the
Chinese laundry shop owner who changed American law forever here
(09:25):
on our American Stories.
Host
Lee Habeeb
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!