D2.Civ.12.9-12: How People Use and Challenge Laws, from City Ordinances to International Law

Overview

Lesson Procedure

60-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes
3. Guided Practice20-25 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure5-10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Open with the two moves.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A town passes a rule. You think it is unfair to you. List every way you could fight it. Then imagine the rule helps you, and someone else is fighting it. How could you defend it?"

   Students list ideas (go to court, petition, vote officials out, ask the state to step in). Sort them into two columns, Use a law and Challenge a law, and introduce Diagram 1. Point out that a court case usually needs a law on each side. Write the question for the day: How do ordinary people use and challenge laws at every level to deal with public issues?

2. Direct Instruction15-20 minutes

   Part 1: Terms. An ordinance is a local law; a statute is a law passed by a legislature; a treaty is a written agreement between nations; customary international law is a rule that nations follow out of a sense of legal duty, without a written treaty. In a court case, the petitioner or plaintiff in error is the side that brought the case to the higher court. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) forbids states, and so their cities, to deny any person due process of law or the equal protection of the laws. Under Article VI, the Constitution, federal laws and treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land."

   The four cases in this lesson

   Case	Year	Law at the center	Level
   Yick Wo v. Hopkins	1886	San Francisco laundry ordinances	Local
   Meyer v. Nebraska	1923	Nebraska foreign-language teaching law	State
   Leser v. Garnett	1922	Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution	National
   The Paquete Habana	1900	Customary international law of war at sea	International

   Part 2: A local law (Source 1). San Francisco ordinances of 1880 made it unlawful to run a laundry in a wooden building without the consent of the city's board of supervisors. Yick Wo and Wo Lee, laundry owners born in China, were jailed for running their laundries without that consent. Glosses: aliens are non-citizens; stipulated means agreed to in writing; the most favored nation clause promised Chinese residents the same treatment as the citizens of any nation treated best; a requisite is a requirement; a livelihood is a way of earning a living. Read it aloud.

   1They seem intended to confer, and actually do confer, not a discretion to be exercised upon a consideration of the circumstances of each case, but a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent, not only as to places, but as to persons. [...]

   2The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less, because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China. By the third article of the treaty between this Government and that of China, concluded November 17, 1880, 22 Stat. 827, it is stipulated: “ If Chinese laborers, or Chinese of any other class, now either permanently or temporarily residing in the territory of the United States, meet with ill treatment at the hands of any other persons, the Government of the United States will exert all its powers to devise measures for their protection, and to secure to them the same rights, privileges, immunities and exemptions as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation, and to which they are entitled by treaty.”

   3The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. [...]

   4[...] Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. [...]

   5The present cases, as shown by the facts disclosed in the record, are within this class. It appears that both petitioners have complied with every requisite, deemed by the law or by the public officers charged with its administration, necessary for the protection of neighboring property from fire, or as a precaution against injury to the public health. No reason whatever, except the will of the supervisors, is assigned why they should not be permitted to carry on, in the accustomed manner, their harmless and useful occupation, on which they depend for a livelihood. And while this consent of the supervisors is withheld from them and from two hundred others who have also petitioned, all of whom happen to be Chinese subjects, eighty others, not Chinese subjects, are permitted to carry on the same business under similiar conditions. The fact of this discrimination is admitted. No reason for it is shown, and the conclusion cannot be resisted, that no reason for it exists except hostility to the race and nationality to which the petitioners belong, and which in the eye of the law is not justified. The discrimination is, therefore, illegal, and the public administration which enforces it is a denial of the equal protection of the laws and a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The imprisonment of the petitioners is, therefore, illegal, and they must be discharged.

   • Local: what was challenged, and by what means (Source 1)

     Did Yick Wo challenge the ordinance as written, or the way it was applied? What means did he use, and with what result?

     Result: Both. The Court reads the ordinances as conferring "a naked and arbitrary power to give or withhold consent" (paragraph 1), a problem in the words themselves; paragraphs 4 and 5 then turn to a second problem, how the supervisors actually used that power. The means was the courts: jailed under the ordinance, the owners took their case to the Supreme Court, and they won: "they must be discharged" (paragraph 5).

3. Guided Practice20-25 minutes

   A state law (Source 2). In 1919, months after the First World War, in which the United States fought Germany, Nebraska passed a law about teaching languages in its schools. Robert Meyer, a teacher at a Lutheran parochial (church-run) school, was convicted under it. Glosses: an information is a formal criminal charge; denominational means run by a religious group; salutary means beneficial; inimical means harmful; homogeneous means all alike; truculent adversaries are fierce enemies, here Germany in the war; therefor means for it.

   1Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the District Court for Hamilton County, Nebraska, under an information which charged that on May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School, he unlawfully taught the subject of reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of ten years, who had not attained and successfully passed the eighth grade. The information is based upon “An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the State of Nebraska,” approved April 9, 1919, which follows [Laws 1919, c. 249.]:

   2“Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language.

   3“Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides.

   4[...] “The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. [...]

   5[...] That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution — a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.

   6[...] The desire of the legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every characteristic of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown.

   A national law (Source 3). The Nineteenth Amendment, which says the right to vote shall not be denied "on account of sex," was proclaimed part of the Constitution in August 1920. An amendment takes effect when three-fourths of the states ratify it; in 1920 there were 48 states. Glosses: suffrage is the right to vote; the electorate is the body of voters; autonomy is self-government; a proclamation is an official announcement; to transcend is to go beyond.

   1On October 12, 1920, Cecilia Streett Waters and Mary D. Randolph, citizens of Maryland, applied for and were granted registration as qualified voters in Baltimore City. To have their names stricken from the list Oscar Leser and others brought this suit in the court of Common Pleas. The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men. Ratification of the proposed Amendment to the Federal Constitution, now known as the Nineteenth, 41 Stat. 362, had been proclaimed on August 26, 1920, 41 Stat. 1823, pursuant to Rev. Stats., § 205. The Legislature of Maryland had refused to ratify it. [...]

   2[...] Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the Federal Constitution is the question presented for decision.

   3The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the Federal Constitution and sought to be exercised does not extend to this Amendment, because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the State’s consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This Amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid. [...]

   4The second contention is that in the constitutions of several of the thirty-six States named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the Federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a State. [...]

   • State: a law used, then challenged (Source 2)

     Who used the Nebraska law, for what public issue, and who challenged it?

     Result: The legislature and the state's prosecutors used it: the state passed the law in 1919 and charged Meyer with a crime for teaching "reading in the German language" to a ten-year-old (paragraph 1), on the issue of how immigrants' children should be educated. Meyer challenged it by appealing his conviction; the Court agreed that the law conflicts "with rights assured to plaintiff in error" (paragraph 6), the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. So a teacher used national law to defeat a state law.

   • National: counting the ratifications (Source 3)

     How many states had to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, and why did Maryland's refusal not matter?

     Result: Three-fourths of 48 states is 36. The Secretary of State's proclamation named "thirty-six States" (paragraph 4), exactly enough. Maryland's legislature "had refused to ratify it" (paragraph 1), but an amendment binds every state once 36 ratify, including states that voted no, just as the Fifteenth did although "rejected by six States including Maryland," as the full opinion says.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   International law (Source 4). In April 1898, during the Spanish-American War, U.S. Navy ships blockading Cuba captured two Cuban fishing boats, the Paquete Habana and the Lola, and a federal court ordered them sold as "prize of war," enemy property taken at sea. The boats' owners appealed. Glosses: a smack and a sloop are small sailing boats; a blockade is the use of ships to stop vessels from entering or leaving ports; belligerent States are nations at war; a prize court decides whether ships captured in war were lawfully taken; the claimant is the person who asked for the property back. Paragraph 8 is from the dissent.

   1Each vessel was a fishing smack, running in and out of Havana, and regularly engaged in fishing on the coast of Cuba; sailed under the Spanish flag; was owned by a Spanish subject of Cuban birth; living in the city of Havana; was commanded by a subject of Spain, also residing in Havana; and her master and crew had no interest in the vessel, but were entitled to shares, amounting in all to two thirds, of her catch, the other third belonging to her owner. Her cargo consisted of fresh fish, caught by her crew from the sea, put on board as they were caught, and kept and sold alive. Until stopped by the blockading squadron, she had no knowledge of the existence of the war, or of any blockade. She had no arms or ammunition on board, and made no attempt to run the blockade after she knew of its existence, nor any resistance at the time of the capture.

   2[...] On April 25, 1898, about two miles off Mariel, and eleven miles from Havana, she was captured by the United States gunboat Castine.

   3[...] Each vessel was thereupon sold by auction; the Paquete Habana for the sum of $490; and the Lola for the sum of $800. [...]

   4[...] International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. [...]

   5[...] This review of the precedents and authorities on the subject appears to us abundantly to demonstrate that at the present day, by the general consent of the civilized nations of the world, and independently of any express treaty or other public act, it is an established rule of international law, founded on considerations of humanity to a poor and industrious order of men, and of the mutual convenience of belligerent States, that coast fishing vessels, with their implements and supplies, cargoes and crews, unarmed, and honestly pursuing their peaceful calling of catching and bringing in fresh fish, are exempt from capture as prize of war.

   6[...] Upon the facts proved in either case, it is the duty of this court, sitting as the highest prize court of the United States, and administering the law of nations, to declare and adjudge that the capture was unlawful, and without probable cause; and it is therefore, in each case,

   7Ordered, that the decree of the District Court be reversed, and the proceeds of the sale of the vessel, together with the proceeds of any sale of her cargo, be restored to the claimant, with damages and costs.

   8[...] I am unable to conclude that there is any such established international rule, or that this court can properly revise action which must be treated as having been taken in the ordinary exercise of discretion in the conduct of war.

   • International: what the owners won (Source 4)

     The two boats were sold for $490 and $800 (paragraph 3). What did the Court order, and what does the case show about using international law?

     Result: The proceeds, $490 + $800 = $1,290, plus the proceeds of any cargo sold, were to "be restored to the claimant, with damages and costs" (paragraph 7). The owners had no treaty and no act of Congress on their side; they used a rule of custom among nations, and a U.S. court enforced it against the U.S. Navy's capture. The case shows a private person using international law, through a national court, against his own captor's government.

   Students complete a four-row chart, one row per case: the public issue, the law used and by whom, the law challenged and by whom, the means (court, legislature, petition), and the result. Then each writes one paragraph analyzing which case shows most clearly that people challenge one level of law by using another.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one case from today in which someone used a higher level of law to challenge a lower one, and one case in which someone challenged the higher law itself. What happened in each?"

   Teacher note on the sources: The four opinions are quoted exactly from the official reports, with only character-recognition errors corrected. Source 1 records official hostility to Chinese immigrants in 1880s San Francisco, and Source 2 records anti-German feeling after the First World War; state these facts plainly. The opinions use dated phrases such as "civilized nations" (Source 4, paragraph 5) and, in the Nebraska court's words, "foreigners" whose language had "baneful effects" (Source 2, paragraph 4); point them out as language of their time. Source 2 quotes the Nebraska Supreme Court's reasons for the law, which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected; make sure students attribute each view correctly. Source 4 includes the dissent so students can see that the existence of a rule of international law was itself contested. Source 5 is invented, and its laws and treaty are not real ones.

   Homework passage. Source 5 is an invented dispute in which people use and challenge laws at all four levels. Runoff is water that flows off land into a river, carrying what is on the land; a discharge permit allows a business to release a set amount of waste water; binding means it must be obeyed.

   1Source 5 describes an invented dispute over one river. The places, people, laws and treaty are all invented.

   2Local. The town of Alder Creek passed an ordinance banning any new hog farm within 2 miles of the Millrace River, after residents complained of runoff in the water. Ruth Okafor, who had bought land to start a hog farm 1.5 miles from the river, challenged the ordinance in state court. She argued that a state law gives the state agriculture department, not towns, the power to decide where farms may operate.

   3State. The state's Clean Rivers Act lets any resident sue a business that pollutes a river beyond the limits in its permit. The Millrace Anglers, a fishing club with 140 members, used the act to sue a paper mill whose own reports showed it had gone over its limit on 37 of the last 90 days.

   4National. The paper mill answered that its discharge permit was issued under federal law, and that the state act cannot set stricter rules for a federal permit. The anglers replied that the federal law allows states to set stricter limits.

   5International. Twenty miles downstream, the Millrace crosses into the neighboring country of Verrin. Under a treaty between the two countries, either government may bring a complaint about cross-border pollution to a joint commission of six members, three from each country, which investigates and recommends a remedy. Verrin's government has filed a complaint about the paper mill. The commission's recommendations are not binding unless both governments accept them.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, paragraph 5, what fact shows that the ordinance was applied unequally?

   ALaundries in brick buildings were closed along with wooden ones B200 Chinese owners were refused; 80 others were allowed CThe supervisors held a separate public hearing for each owner DYick Wo had not met the city's fire safety requirements

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Yick Wo and Wo Lee were not U.S. citizens. Why could they still rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, according to Source 1, paragraph 3?

   AIt protects all persons within a state's jurisdiction BA treaty with China had made them citizens of the United States CCalifornia had already given them the right to vote in its elections DThe Amendment protects only people who own businesses

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does the Court mean by a law "fair on its face" but applied "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" (Source 1, paragraph 4)?

   AA law with unfair words can be fixed by fair officials BOnly a legislature, not a court, may judge how a law is used CA neutral law is unconstitutional if applied to discriminate DLaws about fire safety may never be challenged in any court

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   How did the 1880 treaty with China (Source 1, paragraph 2) relate to the laundry owners' challenge?

   AIt required San Francisco to license every laundry in the city BIt let China's government decide the case CIt made the city's ordinances void from the start DThe U.S. promised to protect Chinese residents

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What did Section 1 of the Nebraska law (Source 2, paragraph 2) forbid?

   ATeaching any subject in a language other than English BTeaching any foreign language to students of any age at all CRunning a private or church school in the state DSpeaking a language other than English in public

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to the Nebraska Supreme Court, quoted in Source 2, paragraph 4, what public issue did the law address?

   ATeachers in church schools were not trained well enough BStudents were spending far too many hours in school each day CRaising immigrants' children in their parents' language DSchools lacked enough books printed in English

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which statement best describes how the U.S. Supreme Court answered Nebraska (Source 2, paragraphs 5-6)?

   AThe goal itself was improper, so the means did not matter BThe goal was understandable, but the means were not CThe law was valid during wartime and in time of peace DOnly Congress may make rules about teaching languages

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Whose rights does the Court say the Constitution protects in Source 2, paragraph 5?

   AOnly people who were born speaking English BOnly citizens who can read the Constitution in English COnly teachers in public schools DAll people, whatever language they speak

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   On what ground did Oscar Leser and the others ask to strike the two women from the voter list (Source 3, paragraph 1)?

   AMaryland's constitution limited the vote to men BThe women had not lived in Baltimore long enough CThe women had registered after the legal deadline DThe women were not citizens of Maryland

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What was the first argument the challengers made against the Nineteenth Amendment (Source 3, paragraph 3)?

    AToo few states had ratified it in time BSo many new voters, without consent, destroyed state self-rule CMost women in the state had not asked for the right to vote DThe Amendment had been proposed by the President instead of Congress

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How did the Court answer that first argument (Source 3, paragraph 3)?

    AIt said Maryland had in fact ratified the Amendment BIt said women had voted in Maryland before 1920 CIt said the Amendment matched the Fifteenth DIt said the case was too unimportant to decide

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Some state constitutions limited how their legislatures could ratify amendments. Why did that not defeat the Amendment (Source 3, paragraph 4)?

    ARatifying is a federal function beyond state limits BThose states later removed the limits from their constitutions CCongress voted to ignore the state constitutions DThe limits applied only to amendments about taxes

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Source 4, paragraph 5, on what considerations was the rule protecting coast fishing vessels founded?

    AThe wealth of the boats' owners and their trade BA treaty signed by Spain and the United States in 1898 CThe safety of the ships enforcing the blockade DHumanity to poor fishermen and the convenience of warring nations

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What was Chief Justice Fuller's main disagreement with the Court (Source 4, paragraph 8)?

    AHe thought the boats had been armed for war BHe doubted that such a rule existed CHe thought Spain should pay for the boats DHe thought the case belonged in a Spanish court

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    The Paquete Habana's owner used a rule of international law, and Chief Justice Fuller challenged whether the rule existed. Analyze both positions: what each needed to be true, and what was at stake for how people can use international law in U.S. courts.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Make a chart of the four cases (Sources 1-4). For each, name the public issue, the law that was used and by whom, and the law that was challenged and by whom.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Yick Wo (Source 1) and Meyer (Source 2) both challenged a lower law by using the Fourteenth Amendment. Analyze how their arguments differed: what exactly did each say was wrong?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Leser and the other challengers (Source 3) lost. Analyze why their challenge to a national law failed, and what that shows about the limits of challenging laws in court.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Explain how the levels of law in Diagram 1 interacted in Sources 1 and 3. In which case did a higher law help the people who used it, and in which did it defeat the people who challenged it?

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using at least three of the four cases, write a paragraph analyzing how people use and challenge laws to address public issues. Who brings these cases, what tools do they use, and how often do they win?

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.Civ.12.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.