Kawakita v. United States
1952 U.S. LEXIS 2017, 343 U.S. 717, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1249 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A United States citizen holding dual nationality with an enemy state retains allegiance to the U.S. while abroad, and may be convicted of treason for acts providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy, where such acts are proven by two witnesses and performed with a traitorous intent, not under duress, and where formal expatriation under the Nationality Act of 1940 is not conclusively established.
Facts:
- Tomoya Kawakita was born in the United States in 1921 to Japanese parents, making him a U.S. citizen by birth and a Japanese national by Japanese law.
- In 1939, Kawakita traveled to Japan with his father on a U.S. passport, taking an oath of allegiance, and remained there while his father returned to the U.S.
- In 1940 and April 1941, he registered as an American citizen with U.S. consuls in Japan and renewed his U.S. passport, while registered as an alien with Japanese police.
- In 1943, after becoming of age and being unable to return to the U.S. due to the war, Kawakita registered his name in the Koseki, a Japanese family census register.
- Kawakita obtained employment as an interpreter for the Oeyama Nickel Industry Co., Ltd., a private company producing war materials and utilizing American prisoners of war (POWs) for labor.
- Between 1943 and 1945, Kawakita, in his role at the Oeyama camp, committed various acts of abuse and cruelty upon American prisoners of war, including kicking and striking them, throwing them into a cesspool, forcing them to hit each other, denying medical attention, and otherwise compelling them to work harder for the Japanese war effort.
- After Japan's surrender in December 1945, Kawakita applied for registration as an American citizen at a U.S. consul in Yokohama, swearing under oath that he was a U.S. citizen and had not committed acts of expatriation.
- Kawakita returned to the United States in 1946.
Procedural Posture:
- Tomoya Kawakita was arrested and indicted for treason in a federal district court.
- Kawakita was convicted of treason after a jury trial in the federal district court.
- The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. citizen, who also holds the nationality of an enemy state and resides in that state during wartime, owe allegiance to the United States such that certain actions (like mistreating American prisoners of war) can constitute treason, even if those actions might also be interpreted as incidents of foreign citizenship or employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, a United States citizen, even one with dual nationality residing in an enemy state during wartime, owes allegiance to the United States, and actions mistreating American prisoners of war can constitute treasonous "aid and comfort" to the enemy, particularly when done willingly and without compulsion. The Court affirmed Kawakita's conviction for treason. The Court acknowledged Kawakita's dual nationality, a status long recognized in law. It held that dual citizenship allows a person to exercise rights of nationality in both countries, and asserting rights of one citizenship does not automatically renounce the other. Kawakita's actions in Japan (Koseki registration, changing alien status, using a Japanese passport, accepting labor draft papers) were ambiguous. The Court determined that the question of whether these acts constituted a voluntary renunciation of U.S. citizenship under Section 401(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (taking an oath or making a formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state) was a factual matter for the jury to decide, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find he remained an American citizen. Furthermore, working as an interpreter for a private company, even one controlled by the Japanese government during wartime, did not constitute "accepting employment under the government of a foreign state" under Section 401(d) of the Act. The Court emphasized that rights of citizenship are not to be destroyed by ambiguity and adopted a narrow construction of "under the government of a foreign state." The U.S. Constitution's definition of treason has no territorial limitation, meaning an American citizen can commit treason abroad. A dual national, while subject to competing claims, still owes allegiance to the United States. While residence in an enemy country might necessitate some acts compatible with foreign law, voluntarily performing acts of hostility towards the U.S. is treasonable. The jury was properly instructed to acquit if acts were done under compulsion. The Court concluded that Kawakita's acts of cruelty against American prisoners of war—such as beating them, forcing them to work harder, and delaying medical attention—plainly constituted "aid and comfort" to the enemy. These acts, though seemingly minor, were of a nature that strengthened the enemy by making prisoners fearful, docile, and subservient, thus requiring fewer guards and advancing Japan's war interests. The two-witness rule for overt acts was satisfied by eyewitness testimony, and disagreements were on collateral details, not the substance of the acts. Traitorous intent was amply proven by Kawakita's hostile statements against the U.S. and his admissions, which the jury was entitled to believe over his post-war claims.
Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
No, Kawakita had, as a matter of law, effectively renounced his United States citizenship through his conduct in Japan during the war, and therefore could not be convicted of treason against the United States. Chief Justice Vinson argued that Kawakita's entire course of conduct, beginning with registering in the Japanese Koseki in 1943, removing his name from alien police records, securing employment at a munitions plant subject to military control, traveling on a Japanese passport, and praying for the Emperor's health and a Japanese victory, was "consistently demonstrating his allegiance to Japan, not the United States." This comprehensive pattern of behavior, coupled with his "heinous treatment of American prisoners of war," provided clear evidence of expatriation. The dissent concluded that Kawakita had expatriated himself "as well as that can be done" and his later statements to regain a U.S. passport after the war could not undo this earlier renunciation of citizenship.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the obligations of U.S. citizens with dual nationality, particularly during wartime. It established that such individuals remain subject to U.S. treason laws regardless of their physical location or their other nationality, reinforcing the principle that allegiance is a continuous obligation unless explicitly and voluntarily renounced. The Court set a high bar for proving expatriation, requiring clear intent beyond ambiguous acts, and broadly defined "aid and comfort" to include acts of cruelty towards prisoners that bolster enemy morale or efficiency, regardless of their perceived minor impact on the overall war effort. This ruling underscored the gravity of treason and the enduring nature of U.S. citizenship.
