Asakura v. City of Seattle
Headline: City rule barring noncitizens from running pawnshops struck down as violating United States–Japan treaty, restoring business rights for a Japanese resident pawnbroker.
Holding: The ordinance violated the United States–Japan treaty and could not be enforced to deny a lawfully residing Japanese subject a pawnbroker license.
- Stops cities from denying licenses to treaty-protected noncitizen business operators.
- Allows Japanese resident pawnbrokers to continue operating despite citizenship requirements.
Summary
Background
The plaintiff is a subject of the Emperor of Japan who has lived in Seattle since 1904 and operated as a pawnbroker there since 1915. In 1921 the city adopted an ordinance requiring a license to run a pawnshop and stating no license would be granted unless the applicant was a United States citizen. The local trial court blocked enforcement of the rule, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, and the case came to the United States Supreme Court on review.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether the business of pawnbroker is included in the treaty right that lets citizens or subjects of each country “carry on trade” and receive protection for their persons and property. The Justices emphasized that treaties are the supreme law and must be given effect over conflicting local rules. The ordinance’s own definition showed pawnbroking to be a business of lending money on pledged personal property, similar in kind to other collateral lending. Because the treaty’s language about carrying on trade and owning or leasing shops is broad, the Court concluded pawnbroking fits within that protection. The ordinance’s citizenship requirement therefore conflicted with the treaty and could not be enforced against the Japanese resident.
Real world impact
The decision prevents a city from using a citizenship test to block a treaty-protected foreign resident from operating a licensed business. It lets the plaintiff keep his pawnshop and protects similar treaty-covered activities. The Court expressly did not decide questions about admission into the country or other separate legal grounds, so those issues remain open.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?