Yick Wo v. Hopkins
E93770
Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Yick Wo v. Hopkins canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T752708 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Yick Wo v. Hopkins Context triple: [Equal Protection Clause, basisFor, Yick Wo v. Hopkins]
-
A.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, severely limiting federal power to prohibit racial discrimination by private individuals and businesses.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Sweatt v. Painter
Sweatt v. Painter was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged racial segregation in higher education and helped lay the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Yick Wo v. Hopkins Target entity description: Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, severely limiting federal power to prohibit racial discrimination by private individuals and businesses.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
D.
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
-
E.
Sweatt v. Painter
Sweatt v. Painter was a landmark 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged racial segregation in higher education and helped lay the groundwork for Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
equal protection case ⓘ landmark civil rights case ⓘ |
| appliesTo | persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ equal protection jurisprudence ⓘ |
| citation |
118 U.S. 356
ⓘ
30 L. Ed. 220 ⓘ 6 S. Ct. 1064 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| courtTerm | October Term 1885 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1886-05-10 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| defendant | Peter Hopkins ⓘ |
| factPattern |
Permits were systematically denied to Chinese applicants and granted to non-Chinese applicants
ⓘ
San Francisco required permits for operating laundries in wooden buildings ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Yick Wo v. Hopkins self-link ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| holding |
Equal protection of the laws applies to all persons within the jurisdiction, not only to citizens
ⓘ
Racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| involves |
Chinese immigrant laundry operators
ⓘ
municipal licensing ordinance ⓘ |
| jurisdictionLevel | federal ⓘ |
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Equal Protection Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
racial discrimination in enforcement of laws ⓘ |
| locationOfIncident |
San Francisco, California, United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
San Francisco, California
|
| majorityOpinionBy |
Stanley Matthews
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Stanley Matthews
|
| plaintiff | Yick Wo ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
cases challenging discriminatory application of neutral laws
ⓘ
cases involving equal protection rights of noncitizens ⓘ |
| principle |
A law fair on its face but administered with an evil eye and an unequal hand violates equal protection
ⓘ
Equal protection extends to noncitizens as well as citizens ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
discriminatory enforcement
ⓘ
facially neutral law ⓘ racial discrimination ⓘ selective prosecution ⓘ |
| significance |
Early recognition of discriminatory enforcement as unconstitutional
ⓘ
Foundational case for later equal protection and anti-discrimination jurisprudence ⓘ |
| subsequentCitationBy |
Brown v. Board of Education
ⓘ
Plyler v. Doe ⓘ Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. ⓘ Washington v. Davis ⓘ |
| vote | 9–0 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1886 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Yick Wo v. Hopkins Description of subject: Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.