Oyama et al. v. California (332 U.S. 633)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 19, 1948 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 332 U.S. 633 · 68 S. Ct. 269
- Docket
- No. 44
- Argued
- October 22, 1947
- Decided
- January 19, 1948
- Term
- October Term 1947
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Vinson
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- State/territorial law held unconstitutional
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson (wrote), Justice Black (wrote a concurrence), Justice Frankfurter, Justice Douglas (joined a concurrence)
- Concurring in the judgment
- Justice Murphy (wrote), Justice Rutledge
- Dissenting
- Justice Reed (wrote), Justice R. H. Jackson (wrote), Justice Burton
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of California’s Alien Land Law as it has been applied in this case to effect an escheat of two small parcels of agricultural land. One of the petitioners is Fred Oyama, a minor American citizen in whose name title was taken. The other is his father and guardian, Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen not eligible for naturalization, who paid the purchase price. Petitioners press three attacks on the Alien Land Law as it has been applied in this case: first, that it deprives Fred Oyama of the equal protection of the laws and of his privileges as an American citizen; secondly, that it denies Kajiro Oyama equal protection of the laws; and, thirdly, that it contravenes the due process clause by sanctioning a taking of property after expiration of the applicable limitations period. Proper foundation for these claims has been laid in the proceedings below. In approaching cases, such as this one, in which federal constitutional rights are asserted, it is incumbent on us to inquire not merely whether those rights have been denied in express terms, but also whether they have been denied in substance and effect. We must review independently both the legal issues and those factual matters with which they are commingled. In broad outline, the Alien Land Law forbids aliens ineligible for…
Excerpt of a 107,797-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.