Yick Wo v. Hopkins

118 U.S. 356 · U.S. Supreme Court

Holding and boundaries

Facially neutral administration can violate equal protection when applied with discriminatory purpose and effect.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Open authoritative source

8 issue placements

Administrative Discretion & Accountability

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Administrative Discretion & Accountability. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Anti-Asian Bias & Subgroup Safety

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Anti-Asian Bias & Subgroup Safety. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Anti-Asian Bias & Indo-Tibetan Misclassification

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Anti-Asian Bias & Indo-Tibetan Misclassification. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Caste, Colorism, Phenotype, Language & National-Origin Hierarchy

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Caste, Colorism, Phenotype, Language & National-Origin Hierarchy. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Coercive Enforcement, Administrative Domination & Remedy

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Coercive Enforcement, Administrative Domination & Remedy. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Diaspora Belonging & Anti-Scapegoating

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Diaspora Belonging & Anti-Scapegoating. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Indo-Tibetan Self-Naming & Data Fidelity

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Indo-Tibetan Self-Naming & Data Fidelity. Fit tier: Strong analogue. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Institutional Rule Design & Disparate Implementation

Yick Wo v. Hopkins supports or supplies a protective rule relevant to Institutional Rule Design & Disparate Implementation. Fit tier: Direct. The placement must be used only within the holding and limitations recorded here.

Scope and limitations: Requires evidence of discriminatory administration; disparate outcomes alone do not automatically satisfy the doctrine.

Verification-state description: authoritative_text_identified; pinpoint_and_currentness_review_required

Publication and provenance

The authority is published once; issue-specific orientation and fit remain separate placements. Analogue, contextual, and historical-adverse fits are not represented as controlling.

Published under research-publication-clearance-2026-07-21. deterministic validation and objective verification are not claimed.