In re Parrott
1 F. 481 (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law prohibiting corporations from employing individuals of a specific nationality is void because it denies those individuals the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and violates U.S. treaty obligations under the Supremacy Clause. A state's reserved power to regulate corporations cannot be used as a pretext to achieve an unconstitutional objective.
Facts:
- In 1879, California adopted a new state constitution.
- Article 19, § 2 of that constitution provided that no corporation formed under state law could employ 'any Chinese or Mongolians.'
- The California Legislature subsequently enacted Penal Code § 178, making it a misdemeanor for any officer, director, or agent of a corporation to employ a Chinese or Mongolian person.
- Tiburcio Parrott was the president of the Sulphur Bank Quicksilver Mining Company, a California corporation.
- In his capacity as an officer of the corporation, Parrott employed Chinese individuals to work for the company.
- This employment was a direct violation of the new state constitutional provision and penal code section.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiburcio Parrott was arrested in California for an alleged violation of California Penal Code § 178.
- He was held in custody to answer the criminal complaint in a California state court.
- Parrott filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the District of California, arguing that his imprisonment was unlawful because the state law was unconstitutional.
- The federal Circuit Court issued the writ and held a hearing to determine the validity of the law and whether Parrott should be discharged from custody.
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 California constitutional provision, and its implementing statute, that prohibits corporations from employing Chinese or Mongolian individuals violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Burlingame Treaty between the United States and China?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, J.
Yes, the California law violates the U.S. Constitution and the Burlingame Treaty. The state's reserved power to alter or amend corporate charters is not unlimited and cannot be exercised in a way that is unreasonable, oppressive, or in bad faith. A law that forbids corporations from employing a specific class of persons effectively destroys the beneficial use of corporate property and is an unconstitutional exercise of that power. Furthermore, the law is void because it conflicts with the Burlingame Treaty, which, under the Supremacy Clause, is the supreme law of the land. The treaty guarantees Chinese residents the right to reside in the U.S. with all the 'privileges, immunities, and exemptions of the most favored nation,' which fundamentally includes the right to labor for a living. The court must look to the purpose and effect of the legislation, which is clearly to drive Chinese people from the state, an unconstitutional end that cannot be achieved indirectly through the regulation of corporations.
Concurring - Sawyer, J.
Yes, the California law is void. The law directly conflicts with both the Burlingame Treaty and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. U.S. treaties are the supreme law of the land and subordinate any conflicting state constitutional provisions or statutes. The treaty secures for Chinese residents the right to labor, a fundamental privilege enjoyed by subjects of the 'most favored nation.' Additionally, the law denies Chinese residents, who are 'persons within its jurisdiction,' the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Depriving a specific group of people of the right to contract for their labor in a vast field of employment is a clear violation of this guarantee. A state cannot use a legitimate power, such as regulating corporations, as a means to achieve an unlawful and unconstitutional end, such as racial discrimination.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark early application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to non-citizens, specifically protecting the rights of Chinese immigrants against discriminatory state laws. It firmly establishes that the right to work and contract for one's labor is a fundamental right included within the 'liberty' and 'property' protected by the amendment. The decision also powerfully reaffirms the supremacy of federal treaties over state law, limiting a state's ability to interfere in foreign relations or discriminate against foreign nationals. By restricting the state's 'reserved power' over corporations, the court prevented this power from being used as a tool to circumvent constitutional protections.
