Hideichi Takeguma v. United States
156 F.2d 437
9th Cir.
1946
Check Treatment

*2 DENMAN, GARRECHT, Before HEALY, MATTHEWS, STEPHENS, BONE, ORR, Judges. Circuit

STEPHENS, Judge. Circuit Fujioka and Takeguma,

Hideichi indicted, Tajii tried before were Judge (jury waived), United District violation convicted and sentenced Act Training Service the Selective amended, S'tat. 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, seq., et § By stipulation they all three Act. were together, appeals tried were con record, transcript solidated one into through and submitted to court con arguments. solidated briefs oral appellants All three were born in descent, Japanese were State California began when between the United Japan. All States and three Training and registered under the Selective boards and Act with their local Service registration thereafter files were their 1, Yuma Local Board No. transferred to Arizona, gone to the County, had after jurisdiction of said board from their resi excluded being California Exclusion through a Order dences Civilian military commander.1 were classified All three military (1-A), available for military acceptable by authorities for service, and were for induction. All were induction center refused to the induc- go but all go free prosecution center. tion upon as to each were based conviction obey If the board’s order. his refusal all, question as there could be no judgments. validity of There however, are, facts addition to Endo, history complete Parte oí and cita For authority In the latter sub case the L.Ed. 243. 89 ject under which tion of Hirabayashi centers dealt with issued, of relocation exclusion was see in extenso. 81 at S. seq., L.Ed. 1774 et and Ex Ct. stated, Takeguma, additional As to it will be seen all above little, more, his case if than a apply three alike to the facts straight case of refusal induc- written in a facts contained If merit, tion. the merit *3 briefs and scope the stipulation, but the solely upon must rest the fact that was appellants is not argument the oral excluded from the Western Zone Defense stipulation. confined to the and confined in some manner in the Arizona pleas guilty were set original The Relocation Center. appellants, and agreement aside of court Fujioka, As to Yasuto his case has the quash indictments were motions the and merit, if any, Takeguma’s has, case submitted, filed, argued the court and and requested expatriation. addition he again Appellants then enter- them. denied An exclusion him order and an pleas the trial guilty, ed their segregation (we order of assume from those proceeded. Attached the motions to issued, not so ordered) was all before up quash setting were numerous affidavits order of induction. matter, appellants present factual much case, Kingo As to though Tajii’s exactly all such factual their as it is Fujioka’s, except like the trial court and is order matter before of ex- fact, clusion and segregation now is not the was made before this court. This sub- sequent to for however. induction. appears only One fact which inferential- Appellants prayer their for the base ly stipulation the written is that all three reversal of judgments the conten appellants they at the time “* * * tion that the orders of induction orders to board induction against the [appellants] by defendants their were under confinement at center a reloca- local draft boards were in excess of the center. The tion inference state- jurisdiction of said local draft boards.” stipulation ment to the effect that The basis for argumenta- the contention is appellants permitted “were to leave the tively appellants’ opening stated in brief solely pur- Relocation Center for the

.said “Although as follows: American citizens Phoenix, pose reporting Arizona, birth, the defendants [appellants] be- No other mention emergency cause of claimed have center stipu- relocation is mentioned in the enemies, pris- alien treated as interned as lation. war, solely oners of because we have Appellee has government out the at war with set status of each their where appellant as follows: (Emphasis ancestors were born.” theirs.) Taheguma Phoenix) (C-70S5 course, Of the case cannot be made so Rog? 30, 1943 June stored simple. It was the considered January 1, 1944 of acceptability Certificate issued American military command that the 24, 1944 November Classified 1-A large Japanese block of nationals and February 27, report 1945 for Ordered to induction American born of Japanese ancestry, most- request for No and no order ly generation removed, the first should be segregation of exclusion issued. excluded from the Western Coastal area (C-7109 Fujioha Phoenix) of such exclusion has been Reg'stored 10, July 1943 Hirabayashi declared valid. v. United January 1, 1944 of acceptability Certificate issued States, 1943, 81, February 1944 320 63 Classified 1-A 1375, U.S. S.Ct. 87 August 30, Expatriation 1944 requested 1774; States, 1943, L.Ed. Yasui United segrega- January 1945 19, Order exclusion and 1392, 1793; S.Ct. tion February report Ordered induction States, 1944, Korematsu v. United Tajii (C-7161Phoenix) 89 L.Ed. 194. Registered 30, 1942 Training Selective Service Act August 16, Expatriation requested issued provides persons that all male between the 1, 1944 January of acceptability Certificate 1944 Ordered October ages eighteen forty-five residing in segrega- Orders of January exclusion and with certain enumerated tion issued completed Fujioka exceptions, and’ shall on behalf of Yasuto he liable Kingo Tajii. of the forces training or naval land It Act). (§ If, claim, this- two provided that nationals this section transformed, completed expatriation, act of country country in this an alien them from into sub citizens into the service unless shall not inducted jects enemies, ap Japan, alien hence acceptable or naval land pellants gained goal their not within forces. alien enemies who are ac n exceptionsenumerated and were acceptable ceptable (and authorities They .to the land or answered forces. naval *4 may were) in still serve requirements all of and were ordered the the land naval or forces the United of n n intothe forces. States. nothing whatever claim There is to It remains to determined whether be that from the Pacific the mere removal or not and the order induction is null for any location), area (or confinement to expatriation if the order of has been void was,' any- harsh as act to relieve it should prior to the order of induction serving in the necessity the of one from (Fujioka’s case) whether or not the and military forces. if the order for induction is null void and Takeguma’s disposes of Hideichi This expatriation of has been issued sub order States, Shigeru Fujii United case. See sequently the of (Tajii’s to order induction Cir., 1945, 148F.2d case). whether It remains to be considered opinion appear- an only there is request granted expatriation not or the outstanding in inconsistency ance the of appellants, together with by the other two is order there orders. the segregation, and of exclusion So change nationality. than a in no more report order to with the so inconsistent order of de- far the record shows no as the for induction as to void latter order. portation been issued in case of the By appellants mean that expatriation the furnished either We have provisions of 8 have acted U.S. principle know authority, no and of no we a person “A is national of who C.A. 801 § that the one law, holding as a basis * * * shall the lose his United ap- order, the of which the two violation * * * making in nationality by: (i) the convicted, is pellants was and a formal written renunciation order administrative void another pre nationality may as be in such form trial. We outstanding at time of was the may as by, before such officer and scribed appellants’ claim nothing supporting find General, by, Attorney designated be the lost boards the Selective Service local that be in States shall a whenever the United is- classify jurisdiction to Attorney the state war and General induction center sue orders to to approve renunciation as con shall such for induction. trary interests national defense to the * * of the mo- have reserved treatment Fed.Reg. We U.S.A., See Code concluding quash pages of D, to the Subchapter tions to Supp., Part Title repetition of avoid opinion in to this order of United States Nation 316—Renunciation procedure fact comment. ality. appears was It that this * * * training further, That States. Provided 803. Persons liable “§ * any country subject service; who no citizen or may pro- Except “(a) provided be or who hereafter in has been otherwise every Act, an alien the President male Unit- claimed to citizen enemy every person be in- the United States shall ed other male training and service under this is be- ducted for who ages eighteen forty-five acceptable land or tween Act unless he U.S.C.A.Appendix, registration, forces.” at time fixed naval training and be liable for shall naval forces of land or permitted camp, would be quash indict to leave that he motion to transported discretion of Lake Relocation Center Tule to the sound is directed ment place on behalf of unless that overcrowded made was The motion the court. expatriation, supported seeking his others from Poston Takeguma is that reason he effect, “that he did he believes that is affidavit, to the own reason that he was for the Tule Lake where induction taken to held, subject Japan to an or sent that he was was not that believed he placed “stop-list” had been de on Poston der prohibited leaving American citi thereafter rights from prived of his center, being steps through and that then out he has sets zen He great of United States Attorney he suffered General from his home evacuated citizenship renounce his American loss. He believes material ‘stop- put not heard thereon. not been on of action “he has segregated ordered excluded list’ and opinion For the stated reasons report for induc that since the judgments reference *5 * * * authorities have tion issued judge hold we not abuse that the trial did case; his reached denying his discretion motions to made behalf of motion on The quash. supported affidavit by his own Fujioka is appellants registered under Since he effect that attached to the with exhibits boards, with Act their local which expatriation, that applied he was jurisdiction had regis to boards receive the placed “stop-list” Poston on the trations, it duty was the of of each them to prohibited leaving cen- from therefore obey proceed to to the order the induction ter, that he in- segregated, is of center. Violation Act was formed and believes that complete registrant as to each he when Lake was he been taken to Tule has not that to In failed do so. these circumstances he capacity, and filled that he the center was to validity of cannot attack the and detained under the was arrested instant prosecution doing. his in a defense for so A Exhibit a letter to his board charge. is Truesdell, Billings v. 321 U.S. 64 S.Ct. appealing from by sent him Poston from 917; 88 L.Ed. Falbo v. United complains his classification. Therein 320 U.S. S.Ct. hardships endured treatment un- his Estep der He claims the circumstances. “dual validity wherein the was al requests citizenship” and classification 4-C questioned lowed to as a be defense to a going Japan. 1-A since he to instead is prosecution, orders to to the reply. Exhibit B is the Board’s The other obeyed in center had ¡exhibits regarding his re- consist letters by had registrants. duction been refused nouncing citizenship of United .States It is clear that never this our cases reached orders Exclusion issued stage. “Headquarters affiant out of Western De- Appellants Commanding rely fense Command Office of its United States v. D.C., Kuwabara, F.Supp. Masaaki General”. Appellee in his brief indicates that the facts motion made behalf on distinguishably that are case different supported Tajii his affidavit own with obtaining in from our There cases. letters referring attached to difference, analyze do but we effect that his evacuation distinguish facts the cited case them consent, home was his will and that instant from those of the case. Wherein place he was removed to a of detention reasoning opinion the Kuwabara Center, known as Poston Relocation that he opinion, may differs with of this it be steps expatriated to Japan, taken we accord therewith. given he was hearing at Poston un- Authority der Relocation War is affirmed as to each of was’ thereafter advised that he would not be the

U2

DENMAN, Judge (concurring). Circuit reasoning. opinion

I concur and its addition, young I men feel that these should considered the executive clemency. They subject of its attempted citizens citizenship after a con- give up their imprisonment illegal tinued the Federal enclosures, in barbed Government wire soldiers, guarded by condi- armed oppression humiliation. great tions Endo, 283, 65 parte Ex 89 L.Ed. 243. wrongfully

Had one us so par- imprisoned youth because our from, country emigrated had ents Ireland, Germany, with say, England, or war, it cannot be might there abe which exasperation and shame said that our prefer us citi- would not have caused zenship parents’ It was of our homeland. *6 cruelly States first the United

wronged illegal if not criminal us came.

imprisonment that our renunciation resentment, we if, justifiable Even in our adverse the continuance committed acts fatherland, it is for Stales, greater first wrongdoer, be merciful. white and our

Because our skins are European, ground for dis- origin is is no youth and that of tinction between our et et v. UNITED STATES al. SWANSON al. No. 11131. Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court of Circuit. 25, 1946.