Nishikawa v. Dulles
Encyclopedia
Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129
(1958), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
involving loss of citizenship.
), when he went to Japan to study. On March 1, 1941, he was conscripted
into the Japanese Army, nine months before the attack on Pearl Harbor
, and served as a mechanic. Japanese law provided a maximum sentence of three years for evading conscription. After the War he applied to the US consulate in Japan for a US passport. Instead he was deprived of his US citizenship under section 401(c) of the Nationality Act 1940, which reads:
He petitioned a US district court for a declaration that he was still an American citizen because he had not enlisted voluntarily. He testified that in addition to the legal penalties for draft evasion, he was afraid of the violent reputation of the Japanese secret police, and had been told that the US consulate would not have assisted him if he had sought help to avoid conscription. After Pearl Harbor, when he said to other Japanese soldiers that Japan could not win the war, he was regularly beaten every day for a month. The Government called no evidence of its own. Nevertheless the district judge disbelieved him and confirmed his loss of citizenship. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Nishikawa appealed to the Supreme Court.
The State Department argued that the normal burden of proving duress
is on the party relying on it. Nishikawa argued that voluntariness was an intrinsic element of the conduct required by section 401.
The court then examined the evidence on the district court record, found that there was insufficient evidence for the district judge's finding against Nishikawa, and remanded the case back to the district court.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1958), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
involving loss of citizenship.
Background
Mitsugi Nishikawa was born in Artesia, California, in 1916, making him a US citizen by birth. Because his parents were Japanese citizens, he also had Japanese citizenship. He resided in the United States until August 1939 (before the outbreak of World War IIWorld War II
World War II, or the Second World War , was a global conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945, involving most of the world's nations—including all of the great powers—eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis...
), when he went to Japan to study. On March 1, 1941, he was conscripted
Conscription
Conscription is the compulsory enlistment of people in some sort of national service, most often military service. Conscription dates back to antiquity and continues in some countries to the present day under various names...
into the Japanese Army, nine months before the attack on Pearl Harbor
Attack on Pearl Harbor
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese Navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the morning of December 7, 1941...
, and served as a mechanic. Japanese law provided a maximum sentence of three years for evading conscription. After the War he applied to the US consulate in Japan for a US passport. Instead he was deprived of his US citizenship under section 401(c) of the Nationality Act 1940, which reads:
He petitioned a US district court for a declaration that he was still an American citizen because he had not enlisted voluntarily. He testified that in addition to the legal penalties for draft evasion, he was afraid of the violent reputation of the Japanese secret police, and had been told that the US consulate would not have assisted him if he had sought help to avoid conscription. After Pearl Harbor, when he said to other Japanese soldiers that Japan could not win the war, he was regularly beaten every day for a month. The Government called no evidence of its own. Nevertheless the district judge disbelieved him and confirmed his loss of citizenship. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Nishikawa appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts below, holding that the Government bears the burden of proving not only that a citizen has enlisted in a foreign state, but also that his enlistment was voluntary.Precedents and argument
The court followed the decision of Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, in which it had held that "it is settled that no conduct results in expatriation unless the conduct is engaged in voluntarily," a position which was not challenged by the State Department in argument. The court also followed Gonzales v. Landon, 350 U.S. 920, where the court had held that the burden of proof in cases of denaturalization under section 401(j) was on the Government "by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence." The court extended this rule to cases under all subsections of section 401. In Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, the court had held that in a case concerning "the precious right of citizenship ... we believe the facts and the law should be construed as far as is reasonably possible in favor of the citizen."The State Department argued that the normal burden of proving duress
Duress
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner...
is on the party relying on it. Nishikawa argued that voluntariness was an intrinsic element of the conduct required by section 401.
Majority opinion
Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the court, holding that:The court then examined the evidence on the district court record, found that there was insufficient evidence for the district judge's finding against Nishikawa, and remanded the case back to the district court.
Minority opinion
Justice Harlan (joined by Justice Clark) held that "To permit conscription without more to establish duress unjustifiably limits, if it does not largely nullify, the mandate of § 401(c)," since by 1940 conscription had become the main way of raising armies around the world. He also believed that the burden of proving duress should remain on Nishikawa, because "One of the prime reasons for imposing the burden of proof on the party claiming involuntariness is that the evidence normally lies in his possession." He therefore thought that the Supreme Court should defer to the district judge's findings on Nishikawa's credibility.External links
- Interview with lawyer Fred Okrand about the historical context: "Forty years defending the Constitution oral history transcript." Fred Okrand. (1982 University of California, LA.)