Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was aUnited States Supreme Courtex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue todetain acitizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States.[1] Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from theWest Coast, which it had found not to violate citizens' rights in theKorematsu v. United States decision on the same date, theEndo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast toJapanese Americans aftertheir incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior duringWorld War II.
The Court also found as part of this decision that ifCongress is found to have ratified byappropriation any part of an executive agency program, the bill doing so must include a specific item referring to that portion of the program.
The plaintiff in the case,Mitsuye Endo, had worked as a clerk for the California Department of Motor Vehicles inSacramento beforeWorld War II. After theattack on Pearl Harbor had soured publicsentiment toward Japanese Americans, Endo and otherNisei state employees were harassed and eventually fired because of theirJapanese ancestry.[2] Civil rights attorney and president of theJapanese American Citizens League (JACL), Saburo Kido, working with San Francisco attorney James Purcell, began a legal campaign to assist these workers, but the mass removal authorized byExecutive Order 9066 complicated their case. Endo was selected as a test case to file a writ ofhabeas corpus because of her profile as an Americanized, "assimilated" Nisei. She was a practicing Christian, had never been toJapan, spoke onlyEnglish and noJapanese, and had a brother in the U.S. Army.[2][3]
On July 13, 1942, Purcell filed thehabeas corpus petition for Endo's release from theTule Lake camp, where she and her family were being held. JudgeMichael J. Roche heard Endo's case in July 1942 but did not issue a ruling until July 1943, when he denied her petition without explanation. An appeal was perfected to theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 1943, and in April 1944, JudgeWilliam Denman sent the case to the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a ruling himself.[2] By then, Endo had been transferred toTopaz, Utah—Tule Lake having been converted to a segregated detention center for "disloyal" Japanese American inmates.
In an effort to halt her case, theWar Relocation Authority had offered to release her if she agreed not to return to the West Coast, but Endo refused and so remained in confinement.[2]
The unanimous opinion ruling in Endo's favor was written by JusticeWilliam O. Douglas, with JusticesFrank Murphy andOwen Roberts concurring. It stopped short of addressing the question of the government's right to exclude citizens based on military necessity but instead focused on the actions of the WRA: "In reaching that conclusion [that Endo should be freed] we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued.... [W]e conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure."[1]
Because of that avoidance, it is very difficult to reconcileEndo withKorematsu, which was decided the same day. As Justice Roberts pointed out in hisKorematsu dissent, distinguishing the cases required a reliance on thelegal fiction thatKorematsu dealt with only the exclusion of Japanese Americans, not their detention, and thatFred Korematsu could have gone anywhere else in the United States, when in reality he would have been subject to the detainment found illegal inEndo.[4] In short,Endo determined that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the government was unable to prove disloyalty, butKorematsu allowed the government a loophole to punish that citizen criminally for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.[5] Roberts also criticized the Court's majority for blaming the Army and failing to hold the president accountable. The executive branch, he pointed out, "not only was aware of what was being done but in fact that which was done was formulated in regulations and in a so-called handbook open to the public." He called it "inadmissible to suggest that some inferior public servant exceeded the authority granted by executive order in this case."[6]
TheRoosevelt administration, having been alerted to the Court's decision, issued Public Proclamation No. 21 the day before theEndo andKorematsu rulings were made public, on December 17, 1944. It rescinded the exclusion orders and declared that Japanese Americans could begin returning to the West Coast in January 1945.[5]
^Paul Finkelman, "The Japanese Internment Cases."Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. John W. Johnson (Taylor & Francis, 2001) pp. 722–31.[ISBN missing]
This article incorporatespublic domain material from this U.S government document.
Works related toEx parte Endo at Wikisource