Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Background The immigration of Chinese to California began in 1850 at the beginning of the Gold Rush. They soon began to branch out to jobs in agriculture and made up a large group of railroad workers. As the Chinese became more successful, tensions with white Americans grew. White Californians were wary of the cultural and ethnic differences. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many pieces of legislation put into place to keep people from China from entering the United States. The government of California endeavored to prevent Chinese immigrants from working by requiring certain permits that they could not obtain, and passed legislation to prevent naturalization. Many turned to the laundry business, and in San Francisco about 89% of the laundry workers were of Chinese descent. It was often the only job they could find. In 1880, the elected officials of the city of San Francisco passed an ordinance making it illegal to operate a laundry in a wooden building without a permit from the Board of Supervisors. The ordinance conferred upon the Board of Supervisors the discretion to grant or withhold the permits. At the time, about 95% of the city's 320 laundries were operated in wooden buildings. Approximately two-thirds of those laundries were owned by Chinese people. Although most of the city's wooden building laundry owners applied for a permit, only one permit was granted of the two hundred applications from any Chinese owner, while only one out of approximately eighty non-Chinese applicants were denied a permit. Yick Wo (), was a laundry facility owned by Lee Yick. Lee Yick immigrated to California in 1861. After 22 years of managing the facility, provisions set out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors said that he could not continue to run it in a wooden building. He continued to operate his laundry and was convicted and fined ten dollars for violating the ordinance. He sued for a writ of habeas corpus after he was imprisoned in default for having refused to pay the fine. San Francisco ordinance Order No. 156, passed May 26, 1880