Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan
12 F. Cas. 252, 20 Alb. Law J. 250, 5 Sawy. 552 (1879)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that is facially neutral but is enacted with a discriminatory purpose and is enforced in a manner that imposes a cruel and degrading punishment on a specific class of persons violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Ho Ah Kow, a subject of the emperor of China, resided in San Francisco and wore a queue, a braided hairstyle of deep cultural and religious significance to Chinese men.
- In April 1878, Ho Ah Kow was convicted of violating a city ordinance concerning sleeping apartments.
- He was sentenced to pay a ten-dollar fine or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned for five days in the county jail.
- Unable to pay the fine, Ho Ah Kow was incarcerated in the jail overseen by Sheriff Nunan.
- While Ho Ah Kow was imprisoned, Sheriff Nunan forcibly cut off his queue.
- Nunan's action was taken under the authority of a San Francisco ordinance, widely known as the 'Queue Ordinance,' which mandated that every male prisoner's hair be cut to within one inch of the scalp upon arrival at the jail.
Procedural Posture:
- Ho Ah Kow filed a civil action against Sheriff Nunan in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California to recover damages for maltreatment.
- Nunan asserted as a defense that his action was justified by a validly enacted San Francisco ordinance.
- Ho Ah Kow demurred to the defendant's plea of justification, arguing the ordinance was legally invalid and thus provided no defense.
- The Circuit Court considered the legal sufficiency of the ordinance as raised by the demurrer.
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 municipal ordinance requiring the forcible cutting of all male prisoners' hair violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it is intended and enforced to disproportionately punish a specific class of persons for whom the act carries special disgrace and suffering?
Opinions:
Majority - Field, Circuit Justice
Yes, the ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause. A law, though general in its terms, that operates with special severity upon a particular class of persons due to their unique customs and beliefs constitutes hostile and discriminating legislation forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the 'Queue Ordinance' was not a sanitary or disciplinary measure, but a pretext for inflicting an additional, degrading punishment specifically upon Chinese prisoners to coerce them into paying fines. The court reasoned that it cannot ignore matters of public notoriety, and it was universally understood that the ordinance was intended to target the Chinese community. Because the law imposes a punishment that only a certain class feels with exceptional severity for the avowed purpose of affecting that class, it denies them the equal protection of the laws.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in Equal Protection jurisprudence, establishing that courts may look beyond the neutral text of a law to its discriminatory purpose and effect. It affirms that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections extend to all persons within a state's jurisdiction, not just citizens, safeguarding them from hostile and targeted legislation. The decision's willingness to consider legislative intent and practical application set a critical precedent for future civil rights cases, most notably influencing the similar reasoning in Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
Unlock the full brief for Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan