This is part of a series of posts examining the interaction of the Asian Pacific American community and our court system.  You can make an immediate contribution to increasing diversity on the federal bench by calling members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and signing a letter [link to come] urging your Senators to confirm Professor Goodwin Liu, nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Professor Liu’s nomination will be voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.  Also, Judge Edward Chen, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is awaiting a full Senate confirmation vote.  You can call members of the Senate and sign a letter urging the Senators to take positive action on his nomination as well.

How Has the Judiciary Affected APAs?

Landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme have had profound effects on the rights of Asian Pacific Americans.  From equal protection, citizenship, and language access issues to the detainment of Japanese Americans during World War II, it is important to know the history of how Asian Pacific Americans’ rights were affected and how our court system reacted, sometimes incorrectly, in order to prevent such abuses from happening again.  Here are a few examples:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): In 1880, San Francisco passed an ordinance requiring laundry owners who operated in wooden buildings to obtain a permit from the Board of Supervisors because of fire concerns.  None of the Chinese owners who applied received a permit while virtually all non-Chinese applicants were granted permits.  Yick Wo, who operated his laundry after being denied a permit, sued after he was jailed for refusing to pay the fine.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the administration of the ordinance was discriminatory regardless of the legality of the ordinance.  The court also ruled that even though the laundry owners usually were not U.S. citizens, they still were entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Yick Wo continues to be cited to this day for this principle.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):  Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in the late 19th century to Chinese immigrants who were not U.S. citizens.  Upon returning from a trip to China in 1895, he was detained by customs officials and denied reentry into the United States because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned the immigration or naturalization of persons of Chinese ancestry.   In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States is an American citizen at the time of birth under almost all circumstances.  Since Wong Kim Ark, citizenship has been determined by place of birth.

Korematsu v. United States (1944):  In one of its most infamous decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the racially discriminatory Japanese internment order  was a valid exercise of military and congressional authority.  Despite the overturning of Korematsu’s conviction in 1983 (with the help of then-attorney Edward M. Chen and Dale Minami), Korematsu has not been overturned and is still binding precedent.

Lau v. Nichols (1974):  In 1971, the San Francisco school system was integrated, leaving 1,800 limited English proficiency students of Chinese ancestry in the school system without English language courses.  The students brought a class action suit against the school district alleging they were being denied equal education opportunities afforded to them under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.  The Supreme Court agreed.  The principle set forth in Lau that a person’s language is closely intertwined with his or her national origin still rings true today.

One interesting fact shared between three out of the fours cases is that they originated out of the federal district court in San Francisco.  (Wong Kim Ark, Korematsu, and Lau v. Nichols all were decided first by federal district courts in San Francisco; Yick Wo v. Hopkins was first decided by a state court in San Francisco.)  For over 150 years, no Asian Pacific American had ever served on its bench until Judge Edward M. Chen was appointed as a federal magistrate judge in 2001.  (Federal magistrate judges serve 8 year terms while Article III judges have lifetime appointments).  Given the historical nature of the court and that 35% of the San Francisco population is Asian Pacific American, Judge Chen’s nomination in August 2009 to serve as a federal district judge there is highly appropriate.  Unfortunately, his confirmation has been delayed longer than any other judicial nominee this term.  If confirmed, he would be the first Article III judge of Asian descent to serve on this court.

-       Vincent Eng

Mr. Eng teaches Asian Americans and the Law at Columbia Law School and has filed 29 briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court on issues of importance to the Asian American community.