Acheson v. Murakami

176 F.2d 953, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 26, 1949
Docket12082
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 176 F.2d 953 (Acheson v. Murakami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Acheson v. Murakami, 176 F.2d 953, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761 (9th Cir. 1949).

Opinion

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

The Secretary of State appeals from a judgment cancelling the renunciations of citizenship by appellees, American born of Japanese descent, made while incarcerated at Tule Lake. The district court found that the renunciations were “not as a result of their free and intelligent choice but rather because of mental fear, intimidation and coercions depriving them of the free exercise of their will, [and] said purported renunciations are void and of no torce or effect.”

The complaint alleged that appellees, at dates in and between December, 1944, and March, 1945, applied to renounce their citizenship under the provisions of Section 401 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 801 (i), and that the applications were granted; that the renunciations were null and void and should be cancelled for the reasons found by the court; that in 1948 they duly applied for passports and that officers of the State Department had refused to issue passports to them on the sole ground that appellees were no longer citizens or nationals of the United States by reason of the aforesaid renunciations of United States nationality. The court had *954 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.A. § 903 (R.3). The answer raised as the sole issue the existence of mental fear, intimidation and coercion as the cause of the renunciations.

The findings of probative facts of District Judge Mathes vividly showing the conditions prevailing at Tule Lake Center are contained in Exhibit (1) attached to and made a part of this opinion. We agree that each of these findings is supported by the evidence.

Underlying all the particular factors so found as leading to a condition of mind and spirit of the American citizens imprisoned at Tule Lake Center, which make the renunciations of citizenship not the free and intelligent choice of appellees, is the unnecessarily cruel and inhuman treatment of these citizens (a) in the manner of their deportation for imprisonment 1 and (b) in their incarceration for over two and a half years under conditions in major respects as degrading as those of a penitentiary and in important respects worse than in any federal penitentiary, and (c) in applying to them the Nazi-like doctrine of inherited racial enmity, stated by the Commanding General ordering the deportations as the major reason for that action.

Since the records of this court show the government is contesting some four thousand similar cases of deportees who are seeking identical relief, we are giving consideration to these uncontested underlying facts, certain to have their effect upon the minds of the mass of deportees incarcerated at Tule Lake.

In considering the effect of the government’s treatment on the minds of our deported fellow citizens, those litigating here and many others found to be loyal Ameri-' cans, it must be remembered how highly educated are the Nisei, the 70,000 native born Japanese. According to the Army’s statistical division, Bulletin 11 of March 15, 1943, the educational level of the Nisei exceeded that of the native whites of native parentage in the four Western States. It is not surprising that such eminent educators as Robert Gordon Sproul, President of the University of California, protested the Nisei deportations and the De Witt doctrine of inherited racial enmity, later discussed.

A. The racial deportation. Its unnecessary hardships and cruelty as affecting the attitude of scores of thousands of loyal Americans towards their citizenship in a country so ordering them into imprisonment.

Typical of the deportation orders under which the citizen prisoners of the Tule Lake Center were ordered from their homes to their first barbed wire guarded stockades, euphemistically called Assembly Centers, is Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of Major General De Witt of Sunday, May 3, 1942. This required them to be so incarcerated not later than noon of Saturday, May 9, 1942.

What these citizens, their families in a single group, and individual men, women and children and babies were commanded to do in this brief period, less than five days to those not receiving the notice before Monday noon, is as follows:

“The Following Instructions Must Be Observed:

“1. A responsible member of each family, preferably the head of the family, or the person in whose name most of the property is held, and each individual living alone, will report to the Civil Control Station to receive further instructions. This must be done between 8:00 a. m. and 5 :00 p. m. on Monday, May 4,1942, or between 8:00 a. m. and 5:00 p. m. on Tuesday, May 5, 1942.

“2. Evacuees must carry with them on departure for the Assembly Center, the following property:

“(a) Bedding and linens (no mattress) for each member of the family;

*955 “(b) Toilet articles for each member of the family;

“(c) Extra clothing for each member of the family;

“(d) Sufficient knives, forks, spoons, plates, bowls and cups for each member of the family;

“(e) Essential personal effects for each member of the family.

“All items carried will be securely packaged, tied and plainly marked with the name of the owner and numbered in accordance with instructions obtained at the Civil Control Station. The sise and nuwirber of packages is limited to that which can be carried by the individual <or famiily group.

“3. No pets of any kind will be permitted.

“4. No personal items and no household goods will be shipped to the Assembly Center.

“5. The United States Government through its agencies will provide for the storage at the sole risk of the owner of the more substantial household items, such as iceboxes, washing machines, pianos and other heavy furniture. Cooking utensils and other small items will be accepted for storage if crated, packed and plainly marked with the name and address of the owner. Only one name and address will be used by a given family.” (Emphasis supplied.)

One has no difficulty imagining the thousands of families in which the mother must carry the babies, measuring the carrying capacity of each of the other children able to walk against the sacrifice of one or another household utensil, or book, or family treasure.

The emotion of free citizens contemplating the pathetic testing of the carrying capacity of stumbling infants lifting their bundles is not pertinent here. What is pertinent is what our incarcerated fellow citizens felt about it in their several years behind barbed wire under the machine guns of the soldiers in their prison’s turrets. For, so far as concerns the psychology of the renunciations to those renouncing and their surrounding companions, the beguiling words “evacuation” meant deportation, “evacuees” meant prisoners, “relocation center” meant prison and their single rooms, some crowding in six persons, meant cells, as they in fact were. Their true character is recognized in this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Suzuki v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 688 (Federal Claims, 1993)
JOLLEY
13 I. & N. Dec. 543 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1970)
Kiyama v. Rusk
291 F.2d 10 (Ninth Circuit, 1961)
Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers
181 F. Supp. 934 (District of Columbia, 1960)
Yaichiro Akata v. Brownell
125 F. Supp. 6 (D. Hawaii, 1954)
Bruni v. Dulles
121 F. Supp. 601 (District of Columbia, 1954)
Gualco v. Acheson
106 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. California, 1952)
Acheson, Secretary of State v. Wohlmuth
196 F.2d 866 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
Tomoya Kawakita v. United States
190 F.2d 506 (Ninth Circuit, 1951)
Hichino Uyeno v. Acheson
96 F. Supp. 510 (W.D. Washington, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F.2d 953, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acheson-v-murakami-ca9-1949.