Oyama v. California
Encyclopedia
Oyama v. State of California, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California
Alien Land Laws
abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to Fred Oyama, a citizen of the United States in whose name his father, who held Japanese citizenship, had purchased land. In doing so, however, the court did not overturn the California Alien Land Laws as unconstitutional.
.
The California Alien Land Law of 1913
did not employ any specific language targeting Japanese residents in America; nonetheless, they were the primary target. This was in part to appease the nervous California farmers who feared that the Japanese immigrants’ agricultural techniques (which developed out of the necessity to make as much use of small plots of land as possible) would render them unable to compete economically. The implicit intent of the law was not lost on the Japanese; many American Japanese residents and even the Japanese government voiced their opposition.
Japanese residents living in America sought various ways to circumvent the Alien Land Law. A commonly-used way to get around it was to purchase land in the name of their US-born children (who, by birth, were automatically granted American citizenship), and then become the guardian of the property. This enabled Japanese parents to effectively become de facto
(if not de jure
) managers and owners of land.
In response to these tactics, the 1920 version of the California Alien Land Law included more stringent rules designed to put a stop to such circumvention. Among other changes, it introduced a provision that would prove to be crucial in the Oyama case – namely, it stated that if a person purchased land in another person’s name, it would be presumed that this was done with intent to bypass the Alien Land Law. This was a significant shift in the rules regarding burden of proof in state escheat
cases involving land. Whereas before the State would have to prove its case, this was no longer the situation – it was now incumbent upon the defendant to prove that the purchased land was a bona fide
gift rather than an attempt at getting around the land ownership restrictions.
Another, even more stringent provision introduced in the 1920 law prohibited assigning persons ineligible for naturalization as guardians of estate. The California Supreme Court, however, invalidated this prohibition in the 1922 Yano case (Estate of Tetsubmi Yano, 188 Cal. 645).
tensions contributed significantly to the development of these issues, as anti-Japanese sentiments grew more heated and the internment
of Japanese persons took place. California tightened its Alien Land Laws even further, and actively began pursuing escheat procedures. Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen, was one of the individuals thus targeted.
In the case of Oyama, Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen ineligible for naturalization, purchased six acres (24,000 m²) of land in southern California in 1934. He paid $4,000 for the land, and the seller executed a deed to Fred Oyama, Kajiro’s son (who was six years old at this time). Six months later, Kajiro petitioned the Superior Court of San Diego County to be appointed Fred’s guardian, stating that Fred owned the six acres (24,000 m²). The court permitted this. The land parcel was expanded by an adjoining two acres (8,000 m²) in 1937.
Despite a requirement pursuant to Alien Land Law for all guardians of agricultural land belonging to minor children of ineligible aliens, Kajiro Oyama did not do so until the date of the trial.
In 1942, Fred and his family were displaced along with all other Japanese persons in the area. In 1944, the State of California filed a petition to declare an escheat
of the eight acres (32,000 m²) of land on the ground that the purchases made in 1934 and 1937 had been made with intent to violate and evade the Alien Land Law.
The Supreme Court of California upheld the trial court’s finding as justified by the evidence. It further ruled that California was permitted to exclude ineligible aliens from purchasing, transferring, and owning agricultural land, and that Fred Oyama was deprived of no constitutional guarantees.
, the Secretary of State
under President Harry S. Truman
, presented the case for petitioners.
The petitioners of the case listed three grievances of the Alien Land Law as it was applied in this case:
The Court agreed by a vote of 8 to 1 with the petitioners’ first contention – that is, that the Alien Land Law, as applied in this case, did indeed deprive Fred Oyama of the equal protection of California’s laws and of his privileges as an American citizen. Because this decision alone was grounds for reversal of the California Supreme Court decision, the Court saw no need to address the second and third contentions.
First, Chief Justice Vinson was fairly conservative in issues of race. As the famous story goes, Associate Justice Frankfurter remarked that Chief Justice Vinson’s death in 1953 (that is, in the middle of the Brown v. Board of Education
case) was perhaps the only evidence of the existence of God he has ever witnessed. While there are of course no certainties in law, the general consensus remains that if Vinson had not been replaced by Chief Justice Earl Warren
in 1953, the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case would have been decided differently. Earl Warren’s convictions and activism prompted President Eisenhower to remark that his appointment was “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.”
The second reason has to do with precedent. In the 1920s, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality and validity of several land laws. Invalidating the California Alien Land Law would have required overturning these decisions – something that the Court is typically loath to do, especially so shortly thereafter the decision dates. In this case, the Court was able to address the unfairness of the application of the law by focusing on the petitioners’ first contention, and effectively ignore the broader implications.
He notes further that though the statute does not specifically refer to Japanese residents, and though its terms also apply to a small number of aliens from other countries, the effect of the law is to discriminate against Japanese. Justice Black states that if there is only one purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment of which there can be no doubt whatsoever, it is that it was designed to prevent states from denying some groups – because of their race or color – any right, privileges, and opportunities enjoyed by other groups. Disagreeing with Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Black says specifically that he “would now overrule the previous decisions of this Court that sustained state land laws which discriminate against people of Japanese origin residing in this country.”
, with whom Justice Rutledge concurs, delivers the most impassionate opinion. He opens it by asking whether the California Alien Land Law is consistent with the Constitution of the United States, whether a state can prohibit aliens from acquiring land, and whether such prohibition is permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Murphy answers that the “negative answer to those queries is dictated by the uncompromising opposition of the Constitution to racism, whatever cloak or disguise it may assume.” He calls the California Alien Land Law “nothing more than an outright racial discrimination. As such, it deserves constitutional condemnation.”
California
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
Alien Land Laws
California Alien Land Law of 1913
The California Alien Land Law of 1913 prohibited "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning land or property, but permitted three-year leases. It affected the Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Korean immigrant farmers in California. It passed thirty-five to two in the Senate and seventy-two to...
abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
to Fred Oyama, a citizen of the United States in whose name his father, who held Japanese citizenship, had purchased land. In doing so, however, the court did not overturn the California Alien Land Laws as unconstitutional.
California Alien Land Laws
The case of Oyama v. California developed from the 1913 and 1920 Alien Land Laws passed in California. In accordance with these laws, persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States were prohibited from owning land. Under the relevant federal and state statutes of the time, "ineligible persons" included everyone save for whites and persons of African descent. California was not alone in passing restrictive land laws – Washington state, for example, had such a statute as early as 1886. Such land control laws have been used in 19th century United States, and can in fact be traced back to English common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
.
The California Alien Land Law of 1913
California Alien Land Law of 1913
The California Alien Land Law of 1913 prohibited "aliens ineligible for citizenship" from owning land or property, but permitted three-year leases. It affected the Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and Korean immigrant farmers in California. It passed thirty-five to two in the Senate and seventy-two to...
did not employ any specific language targeting Japanese residents in America; nonetheless, they were the primary target. This was in part to appease the nervous California farmers who feared that the Japanese immigrants’ agricultural techniques (which developed out of the necessity to make as much use of small plots of land as possible) would render them unable to compete economically. The implicit intent of the law was not lost on the Japanese; many American Japanese residents and even the Japanese government voiced their opposition.
Japanese residents living in America sought various ways to circumvent the Alien Land Law. A commonly-used way to get around it was to purchase land in the name of their US-born children (who, by birth, were automatically granted American citizenship), and then become the guardian of the property. This enabled Japanese parents to effectively become de facto
De facto
De facto is a Latin expression that means "concerning fact." In law, it often means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" or "in practice or actuality, but not officially established." It is commonly used in contrast to de jure when referring to matters of law, governance, or...
(if not de jure
De jure
De jure is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact".De jure = 'Legally', De facto = 'In fact'....
) managers and owners of land.
In response to these tactics, the 1920 version of the California Alien Land Law included more stringent rules designed to put a stop to such circumvention. Among other changes, it introduced a provision that would prove to be crucial in the Oyama case – namely, it stated that if a person purchased land in another person’s name, it would be presumed that this was done with intent to bypass the Alien Land Law. This was a significant shift in the rules regarding burden of proof in state escheat
Escheat
Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised ownership...
cases involving land. Whereas before the State would have to prove its case, this was no longer the situation – it was now incumbent upon the defendant to prove that the purchased land was a bona fide
Bona Fide
Bona Fide is a studio album from rock band Wishbone Ash. It is the first studio album in six years and is the only studio album to feature guitarist Ben Granfelt...
gift rather than an attempt at getting around the land ownership restrictions.
Another, even more stringent provision introduced in the 1920 law prohibited assigning persons ineligible for naturalization as guardians of estate. The California Supreme Court, however, invalidated this prohibition in the 1922 Yano case (Estate of Tetsubmi Yano, 188 Cal. 645).
Oyama's land purchase and internment
World War IIWorld War II
World War II, or the Second World War , was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis...
tensions contributed significantly to the development of these issues, as anti-Japanese sentiments grew more heated and the internment
Internment
Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning as: "The action of 'interning'; confinement within the limits of a country or place." Most modern usage is about individuals, and there is a distinction...
of Japanese persons took place. California tightened its Alien Land Laws even further, and actively began pursuing escheat procedures. Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen, was one of the individuals thus targeted.
In the case of Oyama, Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen ineligible for naturalization, purchased six acres (24,000 m²) of land in southern California in 1934. He paid $4,000 for the land, and the seller executed a deed to Fred Oyama, Kajiro’s son (who was six years old at this time). Six months later, Kajiro petitioned the Superior Court of San Diego County to be appointed Fred’s guardian, stating that Fred owned the six acres (24,000 m²). The court permitted this. The land parcel was expanded by an adjoining two acres (8,000 m²) in 1937.
Despite a requirement pursuant to Alien Land Law for all guardians of agricultural land belonging to minor children of ineligible aliens, Kajiro Oyama did not do so until the date of the trial.
In 1942, Fred and his family were displaced along with all other Japanese persons in the area. In 1944, the State of California filed a petition to declare an escheat
Escheat
Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised ownership...
of the eight acres (32,000 m²) of land on the ground that the purchases made in 1934 and 1937 had been made with intent to violate and evade the Alien Land Law.
State court proceedings
The trial court found that Kajiro Oyama, the father, had enjoyed the beneficial use of the land, and that the 1934 and 1937 land transfers were subterfuges done with intent to avoid escheat procedure. The court ruled in favor of the state, stating that pursuant to the Alien Land Law, the parcels had vested in the state as of the date of illicit transfers in 1934 and 1937.The Supreme Court of California upheld the trial court’s finding as justified by the evidence. It further ruled that California was permitted to exclude ineligible aliens from purchasing, transferring, and owning agricultural land, and that Fred Oyama was deprived of no constitutional guarantees.
The court's decision
After the case was decided in a trial court and was appealed to and upheld by the California Supreme Court, it went to the United States Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari. Dean AchesonDean Acheson
Dean Gooderham Acheson was an American statesman and lawyer. As United States Secretary of State in the administration of President Harry S. Truman from 1949 to 1953, he played a central role in defining American foreign policy during the Cold War...
, the Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Secretary of State or State Secretary is a commonly used title for a senior or mid-level post in governments around the world. The role varies between countries, and in some cases there are multiple Secretaries of State in the Government....
under President Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman was the 33rd President of the United States . As President Franklin D. Roosevelt's third vice president and the 34th Vice President of the United States , he succeeded to the presidency on April 12, 1945, when President Roosevelt died less than three months after beginning his...
, presented the case for petitioners.
The petitioners of the case listed three grievances of the Alien Land Law as it was applied in this case:
- First, that it deprived Fred Oyama of the equal protection of the laws and of his privileges as an American citizen;
- Secondly, that it denied Kajiro Oyama equal protection of the laws;
- Thirdly, it contravened the due process clause by sanctioning a taking of property after expiration of the appropriate limitations period.
The Court agreed by a vote of 8 to 1 with the petitioners’ first contention – that is, that the Alien Land Law, as applied in this case, did indeed deprive Fred Oyama of the equal protection of California’s laws and of his privileges as an American citizen. Because this decision alone was grounds for reversal of the California Supreme Court decision, the Court saw no need to address the second and third contentions.
Vinson's majority opinion
Oyama is notable for the significant differences in rendered concurrent opinions. Chief Justice Vinson, delivering the opinion of the Court, writes strictly on the facts of the case without giving much note to its broader implications. While freely admitting that it is apparent that the enforcement of the Alien Land Laws in this case resulted in abridgement of equal protection afforded to Fred Oyama by his status as an American citizen, the Court’s opinion rendered by Vinson does not go so far as to rule on – or, in fact, even address – the constitutionality of the statute.First, Chief Justice Vinson was fairly conservative in issues of race. As the famous story goes, Associate Justice Frankfurter remarked that Chief Justice Vinson’s death in 1953 (that is, in the middle of the Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which...
case) was perhaps the only evidence of the existence of God he has ever witnessed. While there are of course no certainties in law, the general consensus remains that if Vinson had not been replaced by Chief Justice Earl Warren
Earl Warren
Earl Warren was the 14th Chief Justice of the United States.He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring...
in 1953, the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case would have been decided differently. Earl Warren’s convictions and activism prompted President Eisenhower to remark that his appointment was “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.”
The second reason has to do with precedent. In the 1920s, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality and validity of several land laws. Invalidating the California Alien Land Law would have required overturning these decisions – something that the Court is typically loath to do, especially so shortly thereafter the decision dates. In this case, the Court was able to address the unfairness of the application of the law by focusing on the petitioners’ first contention, and effectively ignore the broader implications.
Black's concurrence
Associate Justice Hugo Black writes a brief yet notable opinion (with Justice William Douglas joining) in which he notes that while he concurs with the Court’s judgment and opinion, he would prefer to reverse the previous judgment on broader grounds. In his view, the “basic provisions of the California Alien Land Law violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflict with federal laws and treaties governing the immigration of aliens and their rights after arrival in this country.”He notes further that though the statute does not specifically refer to Japanese residents, and though its terms also apply to a small number of aliens from other countries, the effect of the law is to discriminate against Japanese. Justice Black states that if there is only one purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment of which there can be no doubt whatsoever, it is that it was designed to prevent states from denying some groups – because of their race or color – any right, privileges, and opportunities enjoyed by other groups. Disagreeing with Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Black says specifically that he “would now overrule the previous decisions of this Court that sustained state land laws which discriminate against people of Japanese origin residing in this country.”
Murphy's concurrence
Associate Justice Frank MurphyFrank Murphy
William Francis Murphy was a politician and jurist from Michigan. He served as First Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Eastern Michigan District , Recorder's Court Judge, Detroit . Mayor of Detroit , the last Governor-General of the Philippines , U.S...
, with whom Justice Rutledge concurs, delivers the most impassionate opinion. He opens it by asking whether the California Alien Land Law is consistent with the Constitution of the United States, whether a state can prohibit aliens from acquiring land, and whether such prohibition is permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Murphy answers that the “negative answer to those queries is dictated by the uncompromising opposition of the Constitution to racism, whatever cloak or disguise it may assume.” He calls the California Alien Land Law “nothing more than an outright racial discrimination. As such, it deserves constitutional condemnation.”
Reed's dissent
Associate Justice Reed, joined by Associate Justice Burton, dissented from the Court’s decision. Justice Reed states that he disagrees with the Court’s opinion that the Alien Land Laws of California discriminate against Fred Oyama, an American citizen.Jackson's dissent
Associate Justice Jackson writes in his dissenting opinion that since the Court upheld the Alien Land Law, it could not logically set aside the judgment that resulted from its valid enforcement. He noted further that since it was accepted that California was permitted to forbid certain aliens from owning land, it should also be accepted that the state was empowered to modify its laws in order to preclude individuals from circumventing the relevant statutes.Subsequent jurisprudence
Although the Oyama case did not strike down the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws, it nonetheless proved to be an important precedent. In part relying on the Oyama decision, the California Supreme Court found the Alien Land Laws unconstitutional in Sei Fujii v. California, 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952), and California finally repealed them in 1956.See also
- Korematsu v. United StatesKorematsu v. United StatesKorematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II....
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 332