Yes, this law is unconstitutional. First, the court said that the United Nations Charter, which promotes human rights, doesn't automatically cancel out state laws. It's more of a promise for countries to do better, not a rule for our courts. But then, the court looked at the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, which promises equal protection. The Alien Land Law said it was about 'eligibility for citizenship,' but the court saw that this was just a sneaky way to target people based on their race, specifically Japanese people. Since laws that discriminate based on race are almost always unconstitutional, and the state didn't have a very good reason for it, the law was struck down as unfair.

Yes, this law is completely unconstitutional. This judge agreed with the result, saying the law was based on the false and prejudiced idea that Japanese immigrants weren't loyal to the U.S. He argued that it's a judge's job to protect the Constitution and get rid of unfair laws, even if other courts in the past had allowed them. He provided lots of examples of how Japanese-Americans were good, hardworking people and that the law was just based on racism.

No, the law should have been upheld. This judge disagreed strongly, saying the court was ignoring what the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in the past. He argued that for over 30 years, the nation's highest court had said these kinds of laws were okay, and it wasn't the California court's place to guess that they might change their minds. He believed that states have a right to decide who can own land, and linking that right to who can become a citizen is a reasonable rule, not an illegal form of discrimination.

No, California's law is not okay. It's not fair to treat people differently just because of their race or because they can't become citizens. The international agreement doesn't change this law on its own. But recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court show that laws like this aren't fair. The real reason for this law was to stop Japanese farmers from competing with others, and that's not a good enough reason to treat people differently. Owning property is an important right, and the state needs a really good reason to take that away from some people but not others. California doesn't have a good enough reason, so the law is not allowed under the Constitution.

I agree that the law is not okay. It's not fair and goes against basic rights in the Constitution. The law was based on prejudice against Japanese people, not on any real concern for the state. Things have changed since the law was made, and now there's no good reason for it. It makes life harder for people who can't become citizens and stops them from making a living like everyone else.

I disagree with getting rid of this law. The U.S. Supreme Court said it was okay before, and we should follow that unless they change their minds. The law doesn't treat people differently because of their race, but because of whether they can become citizens, which is decided by Congress. There are good reasons for the state to be careful about who can own land. The court shouldn't be trying to guess if the Supreme Court might change its mind or deciding what the law should be instead of what it is.

A treaty, however, does not automatically supersede local laws which are inconsistent with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing.

Although the member nations have obligated themselves to cooperate with the international organization in promoting respect for, and observance of, human rights, it is plain that it was contemplated that future legislative action by the several nations would be required to accomplish the declared objectives, and there is nothing to indicate that these provisions were intended to become rules of law for the courts of this country upon the ratification of the charter.

The California act, in the absence of treaty, withholds all interests in real property from aliens who are ineligible to citizenship under federal naturalization laws, and the Nationality Code limits the right of naturalization to certain designated races or nationalities, excluding Japanese and a few racial groups comparatively small in numbers.

Legislation which results in such discrimination imposes upon the ineligible alien an economic status inferior to that of all other persons living in the state and interferes with his right to earn a living.

The California Alien Land Law is obviously designed and administered as an instrument for effectuating racial discrimination, and the most searching examination discloses no circumstances justifying classification on that basis.

Yes, the California Alien Land Law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court first addressed the argument that the United Nations Charter invalidated the law, concluding that the Charter's human rights provisions are not self-executing. They represent moral commitments and promises of future action, but lack the mandatory quality and definiteness required to create judicially enforceable rights that supersede domestic legislation. Turning to the constitutional question, the court found that the law's classification based on 'eligibility to citizenship' is, in fact, a classification based on race, as federal naturalization laws at the time contained express racial qualifications. Racial classifications are 'immediately suspect' and subject to the 'most rigid scrutiny.' The state's purported interest in ensuring landowner loyalty is not reasonably served by a racial classification, as ineligibility for citizenship does not correlate with disloyalty. The court determined the law’s real purpose was to eliminate economic competition from Japanese farmers, an illegitimate objective to achieve through racial discrimination. This decision explicitly rejects the reasoning of older U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Porterfield v. Webb, concluding they have been eroded by more recent decisions applying stricter scrutiny to racial classifications.

Yes, the California Alien Land Law is unconstitutional. The sole justification for the law—that aliens ineligible for citizenship are a danger to the state—is a false premise without any factual basis. The law is rooted in racial and economic prejudice, not a legitimate concern for state welfare. It is a judge's duty to apply constitutional principles in light of modern concepts and strike down legislation that contravenes those principles, even if it conflicts with older precedents. Citing numerous academic and social sources, this opinion argues that Japanese residents have proven to be loyal and productive members of American society, and the law is an indefensible violation of fundamental rights.

No, the California Alien Land Law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority engages in judicial activism by refusing to follow binding precedent from the United States Supreme Court, specifically Terrace v. Thompson and Porterfield v. Webb, which upheld the constitutionality of such laws. It is improper for a state court to invalidate a law based on a conjecture that a higher court might reverse its prior holdings. The classification based on eligibility for citizenship is reasonable, as it is based on a standard established by Congress, and states have a sovereign interest in regulating land ownership within their borders. The loyalty and allegiance of those who own land are legitimate state concerns, and it is not irrational to tie property rights to the potential for full citizenship and allegiance.

Yes. The California Alien Land Law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law discriminates against aliens solely on the basis of race, which is arbitrary and unreasonable. While the United Nations Charter provisions are not self-executing and do not override the state law, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined the reasoning of earlier cases upholding alien land laws. The classification based on eligibility for citizenship is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest. The law's true purpose of eliminating economic competition from Japanese farmers is an impermissible basis for discrimination. The right to own property is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and restrictions on this right for a racial group are subject to strict scrutiny. The state has not shown any compelling interest to justify the discrimination. Therefore, the Alien Land Law is unconstitutional.

I concur in the judgment invalidating the Alien Land Law. The law violates basic constitutional guarantees and discriminates based on race. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined the reasoning of earlier cases upholding such laws. The classification of aliens based on eligibility for citizenship is arbitrary and bears no reasonable relationship to any legitimate state interest. The true purpose of eliminating economic competition from Japanese farmers is impermissible. Changes in immigration laws and naturalization policies have eliminated any rational basis for the law. It imposes an inferior economic status on ineligible aliens and interferes with their right to earn a living. The law stems from racial prejudice rather than any valid state concern.

I dissent from the majority's decision to invalidate the Alien Land Law. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously upheld this law as constitutional, and those precedents should be followed unless and until the Supreme Court overrules them. The majority is improperly anticipating that the Supreme Court may change its position. Classification based on eligibility for citizenship is a proper basis for determining land ownership rights. The law does not discriminate based on race, but rather on the congressionally-determined status of eligibility for citizenship. There are legitimate state interests in restricting land ownership by those ineligible for citizenship. The court should not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature on this policy matter.

Sei Fujii v. State of California

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot