When delivering the opinion of the court, on what grounds does Justice Stanley Matthews argue that the rights of Yick Wo and other Chinese laundry owners have been violated?

Stanley Matthews and the court of justice concluded that its application violated the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, even if the law is impartial, "if it is applied and administered by the public authority with an evil eye and an uneven hand making unjust and illegal discrimination between people in similar circumstances, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution". Thus, the Court concluded that the action represented "a practical denial by the State of this equal protection of the law" and, therefore, violated the rights of Yick Wo and other Chinese laundry owners.