World War II Japanese American Incarceration: Federal Courts

Pre-war Surveillance

Supreme Court (RG 267): 

• Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941), no. 87 October Term 1940
• Salich v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941), no. 88 October Term 1940

Court of Appeals (RG 276): 

• Gorin v. United States, 9th Circuit (1940), no. 9135
• Salich v. United States, 9th Circuit (1940), no. 9136

District Court (RG 21): United States v. Hafis Salich et al., Central District of California (Los Angeles), Criminal no. 13793

Summary: Espionage cases for Hafis Salich, a civilian employee of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), and Mikhail Gorin, a Soviet agent. Salich sold access to reports on potential subversion by Japanese Americans in Southern California. Selections from these pre-war surveillance reports were submitted in trial.

Enemy Aliens Right to Sue

Supreme Court (RG 267): Ex parte Kumezo Kawato, 317 U.S. 69 (1942), no. 10 October Term 1942

Summary: A resident alien enemy has a right to bring suit in any court.

Birthright Citizenship Upheld

Supreme Court (RG 267): Regan v. King, 319 U.S. 753 (1943), no. 986 October Term 1942

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Regan v. King, 9th Circuit (1943), no. 10299

District Court (RG 21): John T. Regan v. Cameron King, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 22178

Summary: A lawsuit to disenfranchise U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, and subsequently to deprive them of their citizenship. The courts dismissed the case by referencing United States v. Wong Kim Ark and reaffirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for all Americans.

Constitutionality of Incarceration

Four test cases raised constitutional questions over the legality of federal policies imposed on Japanese Americans during the war. These cases were particularly important in reconsidering the treatment of underrepresented groups during times of national crisis.

Refusal to Comply with Curfew

Supreme Court (RG 267): 

• Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), no. 870 October Term 1942
• Yasui v. United States, 320 U.S. 115 (1943), no. 871 October Term 1942

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Hirabayashi v. United States, 9th Circuit (1942), no. 10308

District Court (RG 21): 

• United States v. Minoru Yasui, District of Oregon (Portland), Criminal no. 16056
• United States v. Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, Western District of Washington (Seattle), Criminal no. 45738 (National Archives Identifier: 332827318 [part 1]; 332827492 [part 2])

Summary: Minoru Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi were prosecuted and convicted together. The verdict upheld the curfew and exclusion orders enforced within the designated military area. While the Court ruled on the constitutionality of the curfew order, it reserved judgment on the exclusion issue for the Koretmatsu case. In the 1980s, these charges were vacated through petitions for a writ of error (coram nobis).

Refusal to Comply with Exclusion Order

Supreme Court (RG 267): Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), no. 22 October Term 1944

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Korematsu v. United States, 9th Circuit, no. 10248

District Court (RG 21): United States v. Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Criminal no. 27635 (National Archives Identifier: 296047)

Summary: Compulsory exclusion of citizens during times of war was justified. The charges were vacated in the 1980s in a petition for a writ of error (coram nobis). 

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Draft Resistance

Heart Mountain, WY

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Kiyoshi Okamoto et al. v. United States, 10th Circuit (1945), no. 3076–3082

District Court (RG 21): 

• United States v. Kiyoshi Okamoto et al., District of Wyoming, Criminal no. 4930 (National Archives Identifier: 292804)
• United States v. Shigeru Fujii et al., District of Wyoming, Criminal no. 4928, 4931–4992 (National Archives Identifier: 292790)

Summary: Sample list of cases. The men were tried separately for aiding and abetting evasion and/or violating the draft. Only James Omura (aka Utaka Matsumoto) was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. All of the district court cases have been digitized and are part of the series, “Criminal Case Files, 1890–1949” (National Archives Identifier: 292789). Related records can be found in the series “Case Files of Japanese American Prisoners Sent to the U.S. Penitentiary, McNeil Island, 1935–1949” (National Archives Identifier: 2675080).

Minidoka, ID

District Court (RG 21):

• United States v. George Katsumi Kodama, District of Idaho (Boise), Criminal no. 2984 (National Archives Identifier: 7820152)
• United States v. Jim Hajime Akutsu, District of Idaho (Boise), Criminal no. 2974

Summary: Sample list of cases. The men were tried individually or in pairs. All were convicted.

Poston (Colorado River), AZ

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Hideichi Takeguma et al. v. United States, 9th Circuit (1946), no. 11079

District Court (RG 21): 

• United States v. Masaru Jim Ikemiya, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), Criminal no. 6782
• United States v. William Harumi Nakasaki, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), Criminal no. 6818
• United States v. Kiyoshi Miyamura, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), Criminal no. 7132

Summary: Sample list of cases. Over one hundred men refused to comply with their induction notices at Poston, marking the most substantial instance of draft resistance. The men were sentenced either individually or as trios. All were convicted.

District Court (RG 21): 

• United States v. George S. Fujii, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), Criminal no. 6718 (National Archives Identifier: 26444870)
• In the Matter of the Application of George S. Fujii, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), Civil no. 529 (National Archives Identifier: 26444869)

Summary: George Fujii was tried separately on sedition for speaking out against the draft. He was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Topaz (Central Utah), UT

District Court (RG 21): United States v. Kenchiro Mike Yoshida, District of Utah, Criminal no. 14640.

Summary: Sample case. All were convicted. Out of seven who resisted, four served prison sentences.

Tule Lake, CA

District Court (RG 21): United States v. Masaaki Kuwabara, Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Criminal no. 8966 (National Archives Identifier: 357434743)

Summary: Lead defendant who represented the other 26 men. The only case that was dismissed and ended with no convictions.

Limitation of Martial Law

Supreme Court (RG 267): Duncan v. Duke Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), no. 14 October Term 1945

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Ex parte Duncan, 9th Circuit (1944), no. 10763

District Court (RG 21): Ex Parte Lloyd C. Duncan, District of Hawai’i, Habeas Corpus no. 298.

Summary: Ruled that trials of civilians by military tribunal were unjustified. It also concluded that martial law in Hawai’i could not supplant all civilian laws, and that the military had to respect the constitutional rights of individuals, even during wartime. Although neither party in the case were of Japanese descent, this case was decided on the heels of Hirabayashi and Korematsu, and some justices issued opinions that also addressed the racialized wartime policies inflicted on Japanese Americans.

Involuntary Deportation and Renunciation

Following the end of the war, the government sought to expel Japanese persons detained in the camps, including U.S. citizens and those taken from Latin America, through a renunciation process and deportation proceedings. Lawsuits were filed, both individually and as class actions, aimed at reinstating U.S. citizenship and preventing mass removal.

Renunciation Cases

Court of Appeals (RG 276): 

• Acheson v. Miye Mae Murakami et al., 9th Circuit (1949), no. 12082
• Kiyama v. Rusk, 9th Circuit (1961), no. 16893

District Court (RG 21): 

• Norio Kiyama et al. v. Herter, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 10303
• Etsuko Arikawa v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 7973 and 8014
• Yuichi Inouye et al. v. Clark, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 5945

Summary: Sample list of cases. These cases were filed individually, demanding restoration of citizenship. These are separate from the class action suits filed by the other renunciants. The rulings were mixed.

Court of Appeals (RG 276): McGrath v. Abo, 9th Circuit (1951), no. 12251 and 12252

District Court (RG 21): 

• Tadayasu Abo v. Clark, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 25294 (National Archives Identifier: 357434775)
• Kaname Furuya v. Clark, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 25295
• Tadayasu Abo v. Williams, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 25296
• Kaname Furuya v. Williams, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 25297

Summary: Class action suits filed to prevent involuntary deportation, and full restoration of citizenship for the thousands who had renounced, charging that they had been deceived or coerced under the Renunciation Act of 1944. In lieu of oral testimonies, the court required individual affidavits to reestablish their citizenship; this time-consuming process lasted until 1967, when the last final judgment was issued.

Japanese Peruvian Internees

District Court (RG 21): 

• In re Iwamori Sakasegawa, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 26139
• In re Chika Yamasaki, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 26140

Summary: Contending that they were kidnapped by U.S. military police, Japanese Peruvians filed test suits (writs of habeas corpus) in 1946 to prevent deportation to Japan. The federal government agreed to suspend expulsion, reclassified them as resident aliens and allowed them to stay in the United States. A small number of internees were able to return to Peru.

Reinstatement of U.S. Citizenship

American-born Japanese who were stranded in Japan during the war were confronted with the prospect of expatriation due to their activities abroad. These activities—such as being conscripted into Japan's military, participating in Japanese elections after the war, or holding dual citizenship with Japan—were perceived as inconsistent with their ability to retain U.S. citizenship. Turning to the courts, they sought to have their American citizenship confirmed or restored. Some of these cases also provide detailed descriptions of their lives in Japan just before and during World War II, with a focus on the activities of and climate created by the Japanese police and military. 

The following selection of cases shows how the decisions rendered were contingent on the merits of whether their actions in Japan were voluntary or involuntary. Related applications for repatriation may be also found among naturalization petitions.

Military Service

Supreme Court (RG 276): Acheson v. Okimura, 342 U.S. 899 (1952), no. 421 October Term 1951

District Court (RG 21): 

• Kiyokuro Okimura v. Acheson, District of Hawai’i, Civil no. 1027
• Hisao Murata v. Acheson, District of Hawai’i, Civil no. 1011
• Yoshiro Shibata v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 8122
• Toshio Kondo v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 10686
• Shigenori Morizumi v. Acheson, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 29369

Summary: Sample list of cases, among many, requesting reinstatement of U.S. citizenship after serving in the Japanese military. While Okimura’s case reached the Supreme Court, the case was remanded back to the lower courts. These cases preceded Nishikawa's decision.

Voted in Japanese Elections

Court of Appeals (RG 276): 

• Minoru Tanaka v. Immigration Naturalization Service, 2nd Circuit (1965), no. 398
• Takehara v. Dulles, 9th Circuit (1953), no. 13555

District Court (RG 21):

• Paul Serizawa v. Dulles, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 32026
• Kenji Kamada v. Dulles, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 32175
• Ray Hosoda et al. v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 10095
• Minoru Furuno v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 13308
• Harue Sakamoto v. Dulles, District of Hawai’i, Civil no. 1116

Summary: A selection of cases seeking restoration of American citizenship after participating in elections in Japan. Some of the individuals were also conscripted into the Japanese military. The rulings were inconsistent among the district courts. The passage of Public Law 83-515 in 1953 helped expedite repatriation for those who had voted.

Dual Citizenship

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Dulles v. Katamoto, 9th Circuit (1958), no. 15202

District Court (RG 21); 

• Meiji Fujizawa v. Acheson, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 981
• Nobuo Nishiyama v. Dulles, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 12988
• Akiyo Oye v. Acheson, Northern District of California (San Francisco), Civil no. 29633

Summary: Sample cases where dual citizenship posed a risk of expatriation.

Treason

While no large-scale conspiracy of espionage or sabotage was ever uncovered, there were a few Japanese Americans who were convicted of either treason or the lesser offense, the conspiracy to commit treason.

District Court (RG 21): United States v. Wallace, District of Colorado, Criminal no. 10387

Summary: Three Japanese American women (Tsuroko ["Toots"] Wallace, Florence ["Flo"] Otani, and Misao ["Billie"] Tanigoshi) were convicted of the conspiracy to commit treason for helping German soldiers escape from a POW camp.

Reparations

The post-war redress movement was long and hard-fought. Led by Japanese American activists, the campaign sought large-scale financial compensation for lost property, and public recognition and apology for the forced removal and confinement. While reparations were pursued through Congress, claims were also filed in the federal courts. The passage of the Civil Liberties Act in 1988 eventually provided reparations to camp survivors who were U.S. citizens and permanent residents. On the other hand, Japanese Latin American internees achieved only a partial victory with a settlement in 1999, and their fight for equal compensation continues to this day.

Cases Related to the Japanese American Claims Act, July 2, 1948

U.S. Court of Claims (RG 123):

• William S. Koda v. United States, U.S. Court of Claims, no. 329-57
• Edward K. Koda v. United States, U.S. Court of Claims, no. 330-57

Summary: Sample cases. Under Public Law 80-886 (80 H.R. 3999), Japanese Americans could seek compensation for their losses up to $2,500 (later increased to $100,000 for remaining claims), through the Department of Justice. Additional claims could be filed in the Court of Claims for amounts beyond this limit or for dismissed claims. Despite efforts to simplify the process in subsequent legislation, the overall compensation and number of claimants remained unfairly low. Only with the passing of the 1988 Act, did they receive a more substantial redress, including a public apology. To search for additional claim suits, see series, General Jurisdiction Case Files, 1855–1970 (National Archives Identifier: 2733380) and Index (National Archives Identifier: 594766).

Claims Filed Against the Office of Alien Property Custodian (APC)

Supreme Court (RG 267): Honda et al. v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484 (1967), no. 164 October Term 1966

Court of Appeals (RG 276): 

• Honda et al. v. Clark, District of Columbia Circuit (1969), no. 22188 and 22193
• Aratani et al. v. Kennedy, District of Columbia Circuit (1963), no. 16808
• Harue Sakamoto v. Kennedy, 9th Circuit (1961), no. 16770

District Court (RG 21): 

• Ayako Honda et al. v. Clark, District of Columbia, Civil no. 1179-64
• George T. Aratani v. Kennedy, District of Columbia, Civil no. 3164-58
• Kiyoichi Fujikawa et al. v. Roger E. Brooks, District of Hawai'i, Civil no. 481
• Sekiyo Nishikawa et al. v. Brownell, Jr., Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 18267
• Kazuichi Hashimoto v. Markham, Central District of California (Los Angeles), Civil no. 5739

Summary: Sample list of cases. During and after the war, claims were filed in federal courts seeking the recovery of property that had been seized by the APC or requesting compensation from the proceeds of any property sold. These assets include bank deposits, land, and businesses. Many of these cases were “dismissed without prejudice.”

Class Action Redress Lawsuit

Supreme Court (RG 267): United States v. Hohri et al., 482 U.S. 64 (1987), no. 86-510

Court of Appeals (RG 276): Hohri et al. v. United States, District of Columbia Circuit (1986), no. 84-5460

District Court (RG 21): William Hohri et al. v. United States, District of Columbia, Civil no. 83-0750

Summary: Class action suit that sought compensation for injuries sustained by the forced removal and incarceration during World War II. The case was ultimately dismissed after Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

Reparations Claims by Japanese Latin Americans

U.S. Court of Federal Claims (RG 502): Carmen Mochizuki et al. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 97 (1999), no. 97-294C

Summary: This class action settlement provided a presidential apology and $5,000 reparation payment to Latin Americans of Japanese descent who had been excluded from the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The settlement also underscored its shortcomings: due to inadequate funding provided by the Act, there was no guarantee of redress payments. And those who declined payment or were excluded from the initial lawsuit continue to advocate for reparations to this day. NOTE: As of 2024, case 97-294C has not yet been transferred to the National Archives. Please contact the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for access.