A California court has overturned the decision to grant Hong Yen Chang the right to practice in the state 125 years after refusing him admission on grounds of race

In a sweet ending to an American dream denied, a Chinese immigrant will posthumously receive a California law license 125 years after the state bar refused to admit him because of his race.



Facebook Twitter Pinterest The California Supreme Court righted what it called a “grievous wrong” on Monday, posthumously granting a law license to Hong Yen Chang, a Chinese immigrant whose application 125 years ago was denied solely because of his race. Photograph: AP

On Monday, the state’s highest court unanimously agreed to grant Hong Yen Chang admission to the state bar, overturning a 1890 court decision that denied the Columbia law school graduate the right to practice in the state.

“Even if we cannot undo history, we can acknowledge it and, in so doing, accord a full measure of recognition to Chang’s pathbreaking efforts to become the first lawyer of Chinese descent in the United States,” the unsigned ruling said.

“In granting Hong Yen Chang posthumous admission to the California Bar, we affirm his rightful place among the ranks of persons deemed qualified to serve as an attorney and counselor at law in the courts of California,” the ruling said.



In 1890, the state supreme court found that even though Chang was qualified to practice law – and was allowed to in the state of New York – he was ineligible for admission to the California bar, based on a provision of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 that denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants.

Rachelle Chong, the great-grand niece of Chang and a prominent lawyer in San Francisco, said the family has known about her great-uncle’s plight for decades but no one ever expected the case would be reversed.

“We are just so flattered and thrilled,” Chong told the Guardian.

In its ruling, the court said the “legal and policy underpinnings” of the 1890 decision had since been discredited.

In 1972, the state court found it “constitutionally indefensible” to forbid non-citizens to practice law, and one year later a US Supreme Court ruling made it the law of land. Last year, the court found Sergio Garcia, an undocumented immigrant, eligible to practice law in the state of California.



“What it’s meant for me is that I shouldn’t take for granted the right to practice law in California,” said Chong, who is one of four members of her family practicing law in the state. “When I became a lawyer in 1984, frankly, it never occurred to me that I couldn’t become a lawyer. But when I found out about great uncle Hong Yen Chang’s case, I realized it’s a privilege to become a lawyer.”

Chang emigrated from China in 1872 as part of an educational program to teach Chinese youth about the west. He went on to earn an undergraduate degree from Yale and a law degree from Columbia University in New York.

When he applied for his New York law license, the state denied him on grounds that he was not a citizen. Like many states at the time, including California, only US citizens or those eligible for citizenship could be admitted to the bar.

Rather than resign to another profession, Chang fought for his right to practice law and eventually persuaded the New York legislature to pass a law allowing him to reapply. A year later, a judge issued him a naturalization certificate, and in 1888 he became the first lawyer of Chinese descent to practice law in the US.

Chang then relocated to California, to serve the growing Chinese community in San Francisco, according to court documents. But there, the high court refused to admit him to the bar, ruling that the New York judge’s decision naturalizing Chang violated the Chinese Exclusion Act.

“Courts are expressly forbidden to issue certificates of naturalization to any native of China,” the California supreme court wrote at the time.

This may likely have been the court’s final say on the matter, had it not been for Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis law school, who urged his students to try to have Chang posthumously admitted to the California bar. In 2011, student members of UC Davis law school’s Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA) began working on the case, in an effort to win Chang’s law license and “right a historic wrong”.

“The case reminds us that what we do echos through the ages,” Chin said. “The justices in 1890 made a shortsighted decision based on the passions of the moment. And, looking back at the treatment of immigrants throughout history, it reminds us that harsh, xenophobic responses to immigration almost always turn out in retrospect to have been wrong.”

Elaine Won, a second-year law student at UC Davis and the community outreach co-chair of APALSA, said she thought the case was a way to reflect on the impact exclusionary laws have had on immigrants and people of color.

“It’s a great example of how we can provide a substantial remedy for the wrongdoings that have been inflicted on the Asian community,” Won said.

In Monday’s ruling, the court said: “Understanding the significance of our two-page decision denying Chang admission to the bar requires a candid reckoning with a sordid chapter of our state and national history.” It was a chapter marked by strong anti-Chinese sentiment and xenophobia, the court expounded in its ruling. And at the time, several laws on the books were designed to “disadvantage Chinese immigrants”, who immigrated to the state during the Gold Rush in the mid-1800s.



Chong said she was moved by the court’s comprehensive recognition of the state-sanctioned discrimination against Chinese immigrants.

“For [the justices] to have made the time to write a nine-page decision that very carefully reviewed all the bad law, and the xenophobic attitudes of the time, that really means that it was important to them to make the statement that everybody is welcome to be a lawyer,” Chong said. “And that is very important in these times.”

In 2015, the California supreme court looks nothing like the court of 1890. Of the nine justices, three are Asian, one is Hispanic, one is black and four are women. Chong said she believes that a diverse bar will help protect Californians against discrimination.

Part of the significance of this case for me is that the state understands that diversity is important in the bar, and for justice,” Chong said.

“With this decision, the justices have said emphatically that no matter who you are, if you’re qualified to be a lawyer, you shouldn’t be denied that ability to practice and represent the people of California.”