وياما ضد. ولاية كاليفورنيا، 332 US 633 (1948)، كانت القضية التي قررت فيها المحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة أن أحكامًا محددة من قوانين الأراضي الغريبة في كاليفورنيا لعامي 1913 و1920 قد ألغت الحقوق والامتيازات التي يضمنها التعديل الرابع عشر لفريد وياما، وهو مواطن من الولايات المتحدة يحمل والده الجنسية اليابانية، بشراء الأراضي. ومع ذلك، فإن المحكمة لم تنقض قوانين الأراضي الغريبة في كاليفورنيا باعتبارها غير دستورية.
| Oyama v. California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 22, 1947 Decided January 19, 1948 | |
| Full case name | Fred Oyama, et al. v. California |
| Citations |
332 U.S. 633 (more) 68 S. Ct. 269; 92 L. Ed. 249; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2773 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for the State, مقاطعة سان دييغو Superior Court; affirmed, 173 P.2d 794 (Cal. 1946); rehearing denied, Cal. November 25, 1946; cert. granted, 330 U.S. 818 (1947). |
| Holding | |
| The application of the California Alien Land Law to a minor citizen whose Japanese father purchased land in his name violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because the burden that the minor prove his father did not act with an intent to evade alien land ownership prohibitions discriminated against his right to own property based on the national origin of his father. California Supreme Court reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Vinson, joined by Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge |
| Concurrence | Black, joined by Douglas |
| Concurrence | Murphy, joined by Rutledge |
| Dissent | Reed, joined by Burton |
| Dissent | Jackson |
| Laws applied | |
| التعديل الرابع عشر لدستور الولايات المتحدة; California Alien Land Law of 1913, 1920 | |
خلفية القضية
كاليفورنيا - قوانين الأراضي الغريبة
قرار المحكمة
بعد أن تم البت في القضية في محكمة ابتدائية واستأنفتها المحكمة العليا في كاليفورنيا وأيدتها، ذهبت إلى المحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة بموجب أمر قضائي. عرض دين أتشسون، وزير الخارجية في عهد الرئيس هاري إس ترومان، القضية للتقديم التماس.
ملاحظات
- ^1 See, for example, Laurence H. Tribe, God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes our History (1985), pp. 37–38: "...most observers believe that Chief Justice Fred Vinson was ambivalent about the constitutionality of school segregation, and uncertain about what position he would take after hearing arguments in a series of cases in 1953."
- ^2 The "federal laws and treaties" that Associate Justice Hugo Black cites in his opinion refer primarily to the Japanese-American Treaty of 1911, which authorized Japanese in this country to lease and occupy land for residential and commercial purposes. However, because the treaty made no mention of agricultural land, the California Alien Land Law - which regulated only agricultural land - did not ostensibly present an obvious conflict.
- ^3 There have been several cases before the Supreme Court in which a seemingly non-discriminatory statute was alleged to have been enforced in a discriminatory manner. One of the earliest, and more famous examples of such a case is Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886). In its decision, the Court ruled unanimously that the regulation in question was used primarily to target Chinese laundry owners while excluding non-Chinese laundry operators, and as such, was wholly inconsistent with the protections afforded to all residents by the Fourteenth Amendment.