The most important civil rights case most Americans have never heard of began in a San Francisco laundry shop, with a $10 fine and the men who refused to pay it.

One hundred and forty years ago this week, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the laundrymen and, in doing so, established a principle that still echoes through the U.S. legal system: It’s not just what a law says that matters, but how it’s enforced.

As the case marks its anniversary, and as conservative judges take aim at protections won through legal battles by immigrants, San Francisco is preparing to officially remember the Chinese community whose fight at that laundry — now a parking lot in SoMa — made history.

David Lei, a board member of the Chinese Historical Society of America, has been pushing to raise awareness (opens in new tab) of the community’s role in the landmark case.

“The Chinese community of San Francisco has never received adequate recognition for this gift,” Lei said. “This commemoration is a step toward correcting that.”

The case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, decided by the Supreme Court on May 10, 1886, ruled unanimously in favor of the Chinese laundrymen, holding that everyone in the U.S., regardless of race or immigration status, is entitled to equal protection under the law.

Yick Wo was the name of the San Francisco laundry shop owned by Lee Yick. In the late 1800s, amid rampant discrimination, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed more than a dozen ordinances restricting how and where laundries could operate, including a notorious law requiring permits for laundries not built of brick or stone. At the time, nearly all of San Francisco’s laundries, especially those owned by Chinese immigrants, were wooden structures.

White owners were largely granted permits, while Chinese owners were not. Yick continued to operate his business without a permit and was issued a $10 fine (worth about $340 today) by Sheriff Peter Hopkins. Yick and another laundryman, Wo Lee, refused to pay, were imprisoned (opens in new tab), and sued Hopkins in August 1885. The Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs.

Yick was backed by the Chinese Six Companies, now known as the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, a leader in San Francisco’s Chinese immigrant community that had the resources to hire top attorneys.

The 1880 law made no mention of race. But the Supreme Court found that discriminatory enforcement of the law violated the 14th Amendment. It was the first time (opens in new tab) the Supreme Court had struck down an ostensibly neutral law on those grounds.

About a decade later, the Chinese Six Companies supported another landmark case: Wong Kim Ark v. United States, in which a Chinese American man won the right to birthright citizenship — a right that is being challenged by President Donald Trump.

Lei wants greater attention paid to other Chinese community members who fought for their rights in court, including Mamie Tape, whose 1885 case Tape v. Hurley established the right of Asian children to a public education in San Francisco, and the plaintiffs in Lau v. Nichols, the 1974 Supreme Court case that mandated bilingual education in public schools.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey, whose district includes the site, is working with community groups and plans to introduce a resolution commemorating its history.

The case’s legacy lives on in San Francisco’s public schools. Yick Wo Alternative Elementary School in North Beach is named in honor of the case (opens in new tab) that helped shape the constitutional rights Americans enjoy today.

SF Heritage, an organization that focuses on historic preservation, is working through a community process to create a plaque, monument, or mural to mark the site.

The parking lot is owned by developer Strada, which has plans to build on the site (opens in new tab), according to public records. Dorsey’s office has contacted the developer to discuss a memorial.

On Monday afternoon, city officials and community members will gather at the site to mark the anniversary.

“This is a big part of historic preservation,” said SF Heritage spokesperson Kerri Young. “We are not preserving anything physical; there’s nothing here. But it is our role as preservationists to recognize sites of historic significance.”