You are on page 1of 2

Treaties and the Constitution

Case: Asakura v. City of Seattle (1924; US)

Facts: Asakura, a Japanese citizen, was working as a pawnbroker in Seattle. The


city then passed an ordinance that any person working as a pawnbroker needed to
have a license, and to obtain a license you needed to be a citizen of the U.S. If
you worked w/o a license, you could be punished by a fine or imprisonment.
Asakura brought this suit to retrain the city from enforcing the ordinance against
him, b/c he had a lot of money invested in the business. He argued that it
violated a treaty btwn US and Japan, the constitution of Washington state, and the
due process & equal protection clauses of the US constitution. Superior Court
granted him relief, but on appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed, and
held the ordinance valid.
○ The treaty btwn US and Japan basically said Japanese citizens (& vice
versa) could run businesses in the US, or anything else necessary for trade upon
the same terms as native citizens or subjects, and that they shall receive
protection.

Issue: Does the ordinance violate the treaty btwn Japan and the US?

Holding: Yes. Reversed.

Reasoning: US Constitution, the supremacy clause, says that a treaty made under
authority of the US is the supreme law of the land. As long as US doesn’t violate
the constitution, it has the power to make treaties, and for US to be bound.
Therefore the treaty is binding on the state of Washington. The problem here is
that Asakura will be denied equal opportunity to engage in business, which is in
violation of the treaty. The ordinance says that pawnbrokers are regarded as
carrying on as a "business." Therefore, it is in violation of the treaty. Court
says this outcome relates only to Japanese subjects, b/c of the treaty, and not to
other aliens. The ordinance was meant to regulate the business and protect the
public against fraudulent and dishonest practices, so it should be in effect still
against other aliens.

RULE: Treaty trumps state law because of US constitution Art. VI (2), supremacy
clause.

Notes

• Argument why treaty may not trump the state law?


○ If the ordinance discriminates against a certain class of people, then we
should look at the treaty. Can we take the treaty as superseding?
§ Is the treaty self-executing? In order for treaty to trump state law
it has to be self-executing.
□ The gov't didn’t affirmatively pass any rights, but court
decides it is self-executing?
• Why is this treaty self-executing, while previous one wasn’t?
○ Test: the treaty has effect without congress needing to pass legislation,
because it only asks that we refrain from discriminating. It doesn’t require for
congress to take any additional steps to affirm it. Therefore, treaty executes
itself.
○ The other treaty explicitly states that it needs to be ratified.
○ Pg. 185 - "it operates of itself without the aid of any legislation"

You might also like