The certificate of questions of law was filed here on April 22, 1944, and on May 8, 1944, we ordered the entire record to be certified to this Court.
Shortly thereafter, appellant was transferred from the Tule Lake Relocation Center to the Central Utah Relocation Center located at Topaz, Utah, where she is presently detained.
That petition was denied by the District Court in July, 1943, and an appeal was perfected to the Circuit Court of Appeals in August, 1943. In July, 1942, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, asking that she be discharged and restored to liberty. She wasĮvacuated from Sacramento, California, in 1942, pursuant to certain military orders which we will presently discuss, and was removed to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center located at Newell, Modoc County, California. Mitsuye Endo, hereinafter designated as the appellant, is an American citizen of Japanese ancestry. Acting under that section, we ordered the entire record to be certified to this Court so that we might proceed to a decision, as if the case had been brought here by appeal. This case comes here on a certificate of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, certifying to us questions of law upon which it desires instructions for the decision of the case. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
#MITSUYE ENDO CODE#
On appeal from an order of the District Court denying a writ of habeas corpus, the Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions to this Court, which, under Judicial Code § 239, ordered the entire record sent up.ĬERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Respondent, the cause was not rendered moot by the removal of the applicant to another circuit pending appeal from a denial of the writ, and the District Court has jurisdiction to issue the writ. The District Court having acquired jurisdiction upon an application for habeas corpus, and there being within the district one responsible for the detention and who would be an appropriate 90 afford no basis for keeping loyal evacuees of Japanese ancestry in custody on the ground of community hostility. The power to detain a concededly loyal citizen or to grant him a conditional release cannot be implied as a useful or convenient step in the evacuation program. Power to detain a concededly loyal citizen may not be implied from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage.
90 was the protection of the war effort against espionage and sabotage. The sole purpose of the Act of March 21, 1942, and Executive Orders Nos. Wartime measures are to be interpreted as intending the greatest possible accommodation between the Constitutional liberties of the citizen and the exigencies of war. 9066, which was ratified and confirmed by the Act of March 21, 1942, was without authority, express or implied, to subject to its leave procedure a concededly loyal and law-abiding citizen of the United States. The War Relocation Authority, whose power over persons evacuated from military areas derives from Executive Order No.
0 kommentar(er)
