Asakura v. City of Seattle
44 S. Ct. 515, 265 U.S. 332, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2611 (1924)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that denies non-citizens the right to engage in a lawful occupation violates a treaty granting those non-citizens the right to "carry on trade" on equal terms with native citizens, as treaties are the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause.
Facts:
- Asakura, a subject of the Emperor of Japan, had resided in Seattle, Washington since 1904.
- Since July 1915, Asakura had been engaged in business in Seattle as a pawnbroker.
- Asakura had invested approximately $5,000 in his business.
- On July 2, 1921, the City of Seattle enacted an ordinance regulating the pawnbroking business.
- The ordinance required a license to operate as a pawnbroker and stipulated that no such license would be granted to any person who was not a U.S. citizen.
- As a Japanese citizen, Asakura was ineligible for a license under the new ordinance, which would force him to cease operations and destroy his business.
Procedural Posture:
- Asakura sued the City of Seattle in the Superior Court of King County, Washington (a state trial court), to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance.
- The Superior Court granted the injunction in favor of Asakura.
- The City of Seattle, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Washington (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court's decree, upholding the ordinance as valid.
- Asakura, as plaintiff in error, brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance requiring pawnbrokers to be U.S. citizens violate a treaty between the United States and Japan which grants Japanese subjects the right "to carry on trade" on the same terms as native citizens?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Butler
Yes, the ordinance violates the treaty. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a treaty is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any conflicting state or municipal law. The 1911 treaty between the United States and Japan explicitly grants Japanese subjects the liberty "to carry on trade... upon the same terms as native citizens." The Court reasoned that treaties must be construed broadly, and the term "trade" is a comprehensive term that includes the business of pawnbroking. Because the Seattle ordinance denies Japanese subjects an equal opportunity to engage in this form of trade, it directly conflicts with the treaty's guarantee of equality and is therefore invalid.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational ruling on the power and scope of federal treaties under the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that self-executing treaties create judicially enforceable individual rights that preempt conflicting state and local laws, even those enacted under a state's traditional police powers. The Court's broad interpretation of the term "trade" signals that commercial protections in treaties should be read liberally to effectuate their purpose of ensuring equal economic opportunity for foreign nationals. This precedent significantly limits the ability of states and municipalities to discriminate against aliens in commercial regulation where a treaty provides for equal treatment.
