法律顾问网欢迎您访问!法律顾问网力图打造最专业的律师在线咨询网站.涉外法律顾问\知识产权法律顾问\商务法律顾问 法律顾问、委托电话:13930139603,投稿、加盟、合作电话:13932197810 网站客服:点击这里联系客服   法律文书 | 在线咨询 | 联系我们 | 设为首页 | 加入收藏
关键字:

律师咨询电话13930139603

首 页 | 法治新闻 | 民法顾问 | 刑法顾问 | 普法常识 | 法律援助 | 社团顾问 | 商法顾问 | 律师动态 | 公益讼诉 | 执行顾问 | 经典案例 | 法律法规

国际贸易

知识产权

税收筹划

公司事务

土地房产

建筑工程

合同纠纷

债权债务


劳动争议


医疗纠纷


交通事故


婚姻家庭
商法顾问 国际贸易 | 银行保险 | 证券期货 | 公司法律 | 司法鉴定 | 合同纠纷 | 网络法律 | 经济犯罪 | 知识产权 | 债权债务 | 房地产  
法律英语  
[英文案例]Yick Wo v. Hopkins —— 看华人官司对美国法律的贡献
作者:石家庄赵丽娜律师编辑   出处:法律顾问网·涉外www.flguwen.com     时间:2011-04-21 15:43:00

原文来源:http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins


Yick Wo v. Hopkins(益和诉霍普金斯案)一案开创了一个先例:即对美国宪法第十四条修正案的重新解读。最高法院明确表示:法院可以超越法律的表面现象,从宪法的角度了评判它,法院能够从法律的执行过程来评价法律,进而来判断它是否符合宪法。


An 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886), held that the unequal application of a law violates the Equal Protection Clause(平等保护条款) of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution(美国宪法第十四修正案).


A law that is racially neutral on its face may be deliberately administered in a discriminatory way, or it may have been enacted in order to disadvantage a racial minority(少数族裔). In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court stated for the first time that a state or municipal law that appears to be fair on its face will be declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because of its discriminatory purpose.


Yick Wo, a native and subject of China, was convicted(宣告有罪) and imprisoned(被判入狱) for violating an ordinance(条例) of the city of San Francisco, California, which made it unlawful to maintain a laundry "without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors(市政当局), except the same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone." The 1880 ordinance was neutral on its face, but its purpose and its administration appeared suspect to Yick Wo and other Chinese. Most laundries in San Francisco were owned by Chinese and were constructed out of wood. The few laundries owned by whites were located in brick buildings. At the time the ordinance was passed, Chinese immigration had brought around 75,000 Chinese to California, half of whom lived in San Francisco. The white population became increasingly anti-Chinese and sought ways to control the Chinese population.


In 1885 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors denied Yick Wo and two hundred other Chinese laundry owners their licenses, even though their establishments had previously passed city inspections. After he was denied his license, Yick Wo continued to operate his business. He was eventually arrested and jailed for ten days for violating the ordinance. More than one hundred and fifty other Chinese laundry owners were also arrested for violating the ordinance.


On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Yick Wo argued that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as the law denied him equal protection of the laws. He pointed out that only one-quarter of the laundries could operate under the ordinance, with 73 owned by non-Chinese and only one owned by a Chinese. San Francisco contended the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police powers granted by the U.S. Constitution to cities and states.


Justice stanley matthews, writing for a unanimous court(法院一致的判决), struck down the ordinance. Matthews looked past the neutral language to strike down the ordinance as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. He found that the division between wood and brick buildings was an "arbitrary line." Moreover, whatever the intent of the law may have been, the administration of the ordinance was carried out "with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the state" of equal protection of the laws.


Matthews held that:


Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appliance, 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.


Because the unequal application of the ordinance furthered "unjust and illegal discrimination," the Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Yick Wo has become a central part of civil rights jurisprudence. If a law has a discriminatory purpose or is administered unequally, courts will apply the Fourteenth Amendment and strike down the law. Yick Wo is also the source of modern civil rights disparate impact cases, in which discrimination is established by statistical inequality rather than through proof of intentional discrimination.


(声明:本站所使用图片及文章如无注明本站原创均为网上转载而来,本站刊载内容以共享和研究为目的,如对刊载内容有异议,请联系本站站长。本站文章标有原创文章字样或者署名本站律师姓名者,转载时请务必注明出处和作者,否则将追究其法律责任。)
上一篇:提单的缮制
下一篇:一般律师授权委托书
在线咨询

姓 名 * 电 话
类 别 邮 箱
内 容 *

联系我们
电话:13930139603 13651281807
QQ号:373036737
邮箱:[email protected]
 
点击排行      
· 法律英语词汇学习
· Intellectual pro...
· 英文版剑桥美国法律史 一
· 独家:剑桥美国法律史 二
· 环保税法ENVIRONMENTA...
· 英语口语20000句
· 民事调解书(英文)
· Legal English Ho...
· 独家:剑桥美国法律史三
· Interduction of ...
· 当代国际环保法律问题研究Cont...
· 英文合同导读
· 授权书条例POWERS OF A...
· 2000年国际贸易术语解释通则3
· 海牙规则中英文对照
· 法律英语翻译---自由职业者的高...
· 转让协议(Assignment ...
· [英文案例]Yick Wo v....
· detrimental reli...
· 法律英语词典:legal ter...
· 举证通知书 (English V...
· 海损担保函 Average Gu...
律师团队     更多>>
法律顾问网.涉外

法律顾问网.涉外
13930139603
赵丽娜律师

赵丽娜律师
13930139603
赵光律师15605513311--法律顾问网.涉外特邀环资能法律专家、碳交易师

赵光律师15605513311--法律顾问网.涉外特邀环资能法律专家、碳交易师
法律专家:杨学臣18686843658

法律专家:杨学臣18686843658
湖南长沙单晓岚律师

湖南长沙单晓岚律师
13975888466
医学专家颉彦华博士

医学专家颉彦华博士
精英律师团队






法律网站 政府网站 合作网站 友情链接  
关于我们 | 联系我们 | 法律声明 | 收费标准
Copyright 2010-2011 www.flguwen.com 版权所有 法律顾问网 - 中国第一法律门户网站 未经授权请勿转载
电话:13930139603 13651281807 QQ:373036737 邮箱:[email protected]
国家信息产业部备案 冀ICP备0509988
点击这里和QQ聊天 法律咨询
点击这里和QQ聊天 网站客服
留言咨询
联系我们
律师热线:
13930139603
13651281807
律师助理:
13932197810