To the editor:
The Supreme Court had better think twice before it overturns the federal appellate decisions on President Trump’s travel ban on six predominantly Muslim countries. (“Trump's severe lack of credibility doomed his travel ban with the courts,” Opinion, June 12)
In the 1886 case Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, the court unanimously held that a San Francisco ordinance regulating laundries in “wooden buildings” discriminated against the Chinese even though it mentioned no nationalities. Although almost all laundries in wooden buildings were operated by workers of Chinese descent, the city granted only one permit to those laundries but virtually all of the applications from non-Chinese operators.
The court found an “evil eye and unequal hand” behind the ordinance, reflecting virulent anti-Chinese prejudice.
Yick Wo teaches that when testing the constitutionality of a law, the court should not turn a blind eye to evidence of invidious discrimination like Trump’s hateful statements against Muslims.
Stephen Rohde, Los Angeles
The writer is a constitutional lawyer.
Note from KBJ: Good try, Stephen. Only 13% of the world's Muslims are covered by President Trump's travel ban. Did you not learn in law school how to argue from analogy? Oh, wait. You're not interested in rational persuasion. You're a left-wing ideologue intent on misleading people.
