1905, United States v. Ju Toy
![Picture](/uploads/3/7/5/1/37516431/330116990.gif?193)
The 1905 Supreme Court case United States v. Ju Toy established the invalidation of American citizenships of American-born Chinese.
Ju Toy was a Chinese man born in America and he was not subjected by the Chinese Exclusion Act. But when Ju Toy visited China and came back to U.S., his return was rejected by the customs and he was deported even through he was not a Chinese immigrants. Ju Toy sued the customs from a Federal District Court. Ju Toy was released after the judgments of the District Court, but later the government appealed this case by stating that American-born Chinese shared the same status as Chinese immigrants.
Ju Toy was a Chinese man born in America and he was not subjected by the Chinese Exclusion Act. But when Ju Toy visited China and came back to U.S., his return was rejected by the customs and he was deported even through he was not a Chinese immigrants. Ju Toy sued the customs from a Federal District Court. Ju Toy was released after the judgments of the District Court, but later the government appealed this case by stating that American-born Chinese shared the same status as Chinese immigrants.
1885, Tape v. Hurley
![Picture](/uploads/3/7/5/1/37516431/551492152.jpg?202)
Chinese immigrants Joseph and Mary Tape try to enroll their eight-year-old U.S.-born daughter in San Francisco's all-white Spring Valley School. The principal refuses to admit Mamie Tape, citing school board policy barring Chinese children from attending the city’s public schools.
The Tape family sues the principal and takes the case to the California Supreme Court. School officials defend their position by arguing that the California constitution declared Chinese to be “dangerous to the well-being of the state,” and thus the city had no obligation to educate Chinese students. The court decides in favor of the Tape family, creating one of the pioneering decisions in the fight for equality in education.
The Tape family sues the principal and takes the case to the California Supreme Court. School officials defend their position by arguing that the California constitution declared Chinese to be “dangerous to the well-being of the state,” and thus the city had no obligation to educate Chinese students. The court decides in favor of the Tape family, creating one of the pioneering decisions in the fight for equality in education.
1854, People v. Hall
In People v. Hall, the California Supreme Court rules that the testimony of a Chinese man who witnesses a murder by a white man is inadmissible, largely based on the prevailing opinion that the Chinese are "a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference" and as such had no right "to swear away the life of a citizen" or participate "with us in administering the affairs of our Government."(3)
This judgement is one of the racial discriminated judgements during this era, representing the race base political system during that time.
This judgement is one of the racial discriminated judgements during this era, representing the race base political system during that time.
1886, Yick Wo v. Hopkins
![Picture](/uploads/3/7/5/1/37516431/357819893.jpg)
During the up-rising of the laundry career, the city of San Francisco passed a law that declared an individual could not have a laundry business in wooden buildings without a permit from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Supposedly, the law for having a permit was strictly out of the concern for safety, but the story later revealed that it was more than a logical reason; instead, it was more of an act of racial discrimination. More than half of the laundry businesses in the city of San Francisco were owned by Chinese immigrants. The Board of Supervisors would withhold the legal permits for Chinese immigrants that wished to continue his or her business.
Yick Wo came in the picture and changed the whole thing for the Chinese immigrants. Wo owned a laundry business for years and held an official license (issued by the Board of Fire-Wardens) to run his business. However, Wo was fined $10 for his violation of the law. Wo went to prison after he failed to pay the fine and he sued for a writ of habeas corpus. Wo went to court and stated that even before the new laundry law, his laundry business in the wooden building always passed the fire safety inspection. The Court found that the new laundry law was created out of discrimination. They also found that the administrators of the law abused their authority. Even though during this time the Chinese immigrants were not yet Americans, the court still issued the rights for equal protection for Chinese laundry owners under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because of Wo’s fight with the administrators of law, all the charges against the other laundry owners were also dropped. Although Wo’s fight did not make a 180 shift for the racial issues that occurred during that time period, it was certainly a step towards equality for all Americans. (5)
Yick Wo came in the picture and changed the whole thing for the Chinese immigrants. Wo owned a laundry business for years and held an official license (issued by the Board of Fire-Wardens) to run his business. However, Wo was fined $10 for his violation of the law. Wo went to prison after he failed to pay the fine and he sued for a writ of habeas corpus. Wo went to court and stated that even before the new laundry law, his laundry business in the wooden building always passed the fire safety inspection. The Court found that the new laundry law was created out of discrimination. They also found that the administrators of the law abused their authority. Even though during this time the Chinese immigrants were not yet Americans, the court still issued the rights for equal protection for Chinese laundry owners under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because of Wo’s fight with the administrators of law, all the charges against the other laundry owners were also dropped. Although Wo’s fight did not make a 180 shift for the racial issues that occurred during that time period, it was certainly a step towards equality for all Americans. (5)