green
Positive treatment
Under Fire
Quoted verbatim 13×
31.7 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2000–2012 · 2 courts ·
…is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1911 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1911
1968
2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
(2020)
“Yick Wo , 118 U.S. at 369 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 .”
Concurrence
Nieves v. Bartlett
(2019)
“In Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), for example, San Francisco jailed many Chinese immigrants for operating laundries without permits but took no action against white persons guilty of the same infraction.”
Concurrence
Shelby County v. Holder
(2013)
“The VRA addresses the combination of race discrimination and the right to vote, which is "preservative of all rights." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886).”
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Rivera
But cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-73 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) (holding that racially disparate enforcement of a city’s criminal ordinance violates the Equal Protection clause).
discussed
Cited "but see"
Seamon v. Upham
(2×)
But see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 , 81 S.Ct. 125 , 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Griffin v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
though not regarded as a strictly natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society, according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Louhghalam v. Trump
universal in application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hicks v. State
the fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder
(2×)
is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fletcher v. Haas
the fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bayo v. Napolitano
the fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.... provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kwai Fun Wong v. United States
provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gore v. Harris
is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. City of Monroe, Ga.
though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society ... is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Mortham
(2×)
the right to vote on an equal basis with other citizens is a fundamental right in a free society; indeed, in any viable form of representative government. it is preservative of all government rights.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
the fourteenth amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens.... provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Randolph Mahone v. Addicks Utility District of Harris County
he unequal application of a state law, fair on its face, may act as a denial of equal protection.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Democratic Party v. Jacobsen
(3×)
Nearly a century before Reynolds—and two years after our 1884 Constitution was adopted with the language that still exists today—the United States Supreme Court referred to “the political franchise of voting” as a “fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights” and declared that the Legislature had power to reasonably and uniformly regulate elections to secure and facilitate the exercise of the right as long as “under the pretence and color of regulating, [it did not] subvert or injuriously restrain the right itself.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 370–7…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama
Veasey, 830 F.3d at 235–36 (footnote omitted); see also Hallmark Devs., Inc. v. Fulton County, 466 F.3d 1276, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Because explicit statements of racially discriminatory motivation are decreasing, circumstantial evidence must often be used to establish the requisite intent.” (quotation marks omitted)). 33 USCA11 Case: 18-10151 Date Filed: 06/01/2021 Page: 34 of 34 right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1071 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Thomas Goodwin v. Iowa District Court for Davis County
Nothing in our training as judges qualifies us for that task, and nothing in Article III gives us that authority.”); Roper, 543 U.S. at 607 , 125 S. Ct. at 1217 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (“[T]his Court should not substitute its own ‘inevitably subjective judgment’ on how best to resolve this difficult moral question for the judgments of the Nation’s democratically elected legislatures.” (quoting Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 854 , 108 S. Ct. 2687, 2709 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring))); id. at 608, 125 S. Ct. at 1217 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (decrying the Court’s dec…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee
The right of suffrage is “a fundamental political right,” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1071 (1886), protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee
The right of suffrage is “a fundamental political right,” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1071 (1886), protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
Likewise, in the area of discrimination, the Court has long held, Though the [state] law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, 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. 38 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 373–74, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amended August 15, 2017 State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
Likewise, in the area of discrimination, the Court has long held, Though the [state] law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, 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. 39 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 373–74, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
Likewise, in the area of discrimination, the Court has long held, Though the [state] law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, 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. 38 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 373–74, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amended June 16, 2017 State of Iowa v. Martha Aracely Martinez
Likewise, in the area of discrimination, the Court has long held, Though the [state] law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, 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. 39 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 373–74, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Hayden v. County of Nassau, United States of America and Nassau County Guardians Association, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cf. Yick Wo, 118 U.S. at 373-74 , 6 S.Ct. at 1072-73 (finding an equal protection violation where a facially neutral ordinance was dis-criminatorily applied to Chinese businesses). 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Puglisi v. Underhill Park Taxpayer Assoc.
On § 1981, the Court notes; “the statute has long been viewed as prohibiting certain forms of discrimination based on race, see, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), and its reference to rights enjoyed by white citizens establishes the ‘racial character of the rights being protected,’ McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heller v. Foulston (In Re Heller)
Debtors also cite Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), which appears to declare a similar rule; *662 that case proscribes criminal statutes which are “intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent” and which are “purely arbitrary, and acknowledge ... neither guidance nor constraint,” id 118 U.S. at 366, 367 , 6 S.Ct. at 1069, 1069 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Higginbotham
Debtors also cite Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), which appears to declare a similar rule; that case proscribes criminal statutes which are “intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent” and which are “purely arbitrary, and acknowledge ... neither guidance nor constraint,” id. 118 U.S. at 366, 367 , 6 S.Ct. at 1068, 1069 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gettman
Ed. 220 , 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886); Harman v. McNutt, 91 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 587 P.2d 537 (1978).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert v. Carovano
The statute has long been viewed as prohibiting certain forms of discrimination based on race, see, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), and its reference to rights enjoyed by white citizens establishes the "racial character of the rights being protected," McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albert v. Carovano
The statute has long been viewed as prohibiting certain forms of discrimination based on race, see, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886), and its reference to rights enjoyed by white citizens establishes the “racial character of the rights being protected,” McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Howard
We recognize that “[t]hough the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, 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 discrimina-tions between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 , 30 L.Ed. 220, 227 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sirilan v. Castro
The questions we have to consider... therefore, are to be treated as Involving the rights of every citizen... equally with those of the strangers and aliens Who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 6 S.Ct. at 1070.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
George Searcy, Etc. v. Eugene C. Williams, Etc.
(2×)
Id. at 358-359, 374 , 6 S.Ct. at 1065-1066, 1073 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Corp. v. Guam Airport Authority
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wida v. Rosini
“Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, 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 discrimi-nations between persons in similar circumstances, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1073 (1886).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles W. Olshock, Cross-Appellants v. Village of Skokie, Cross-Appellees
(2×)
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86-7 , [ 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 ] or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-4 , [ 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 ], 30 L.Ed. 220 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. State
(2×)
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or persons, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 , or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gozdanovic v. Civil Serv. Com'n for City of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yanito v. Barber
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 , or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . 321 U.S. at 8 , 64 S.Ct. at 401 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
O'HARA v. Mattix
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 , or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henry Hughes v. Robert A. Heinze, Warden, Folsom State Prison
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class, or person, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86-87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 , or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of New Orleans v. Levy
(2×)
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, of McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 [904], or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 [227, 228].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morgan v. Sylvester
Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86-7 [ 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 ], or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-4 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ].
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez
(2×)
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87 , 36 S.Ct. 498, 501 , 60 L.Ed. 899 , or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374 , 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073 , 30 L.Ed. 220 . * * *" (Emphasis supplied.) In the Los Angeles telephone case the sole finding of fact was that the city authorities had established a telephone rate…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation
No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for the Supreme Court in Tick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Ct. 1064, 1071 ( 30 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Christa Mcauliffe Intermediate School Pto v. De Blasio
See Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 , 373-74, 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886).
cited
Cited "see"
Davila v. N. Reg'l Joint Police Bd.
See Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 , 374, 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886).
discussed
Cited "see"
Copeland v. Vance
See United States v. Armstrong , 517 U.S. 456 , 464-65, 116 S.Ct. 1480 , 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996) ("A defendant may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal law is 'directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons with a mind so unequal and oppressive' that the system of prosecution amounts to 'a practical denial' of equal protection of the law." (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 , 373, 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) ) ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nguyen v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology
(2×)
See 118 U.S. at 358 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cannon
v.
United States
v.
United States
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 10, 1886.
Mr. Franklin S. Richards, one of the counsel for plaintiff in error in Snow v. United States, ante 346, was counsel for plaintiff in error in this case.
Blatchford.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Blatcheord
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision in Snow v. United States, ante, p. 346, dismissing the writs of error for want of- jurisdiction, shows that there was no jurisdiction of the writ of error in this case. As the decision reported in 116 U. S. 55, was made at the present term, the judgment rendered on the 14th of December, 1885, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah, is set aside and vacated ; the mandate is recalled; and
The writ of error is dismissed.