Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
92 L. Ed. 2d 1478, 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2718, 334 U.S. 410 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that prohibits lawfully admitted resident aliens from earning a living in a common occupation based on their ineligibility for citizenship under federal law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a law impermissibly infringes upon the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
Facts:
- Torao Takahashi, a person of Japanese birth, became a resident of California in 1907.
- Under federal law, Takahashi was ineligible for United States citizenship based on his race.
- From 1915 to 1942, Takahashi held annual commercial fishing licenses issued by California and worked as a fisherman off the state's coast.
- In 1942, during World War II, Takahashi and other residents of Japanese ancestry were evacuated from California by military order.
- In 1943, California amended its law to prohibit issuing commercial fishing licenses to any 'alien Japanese'.
- In 1945, California again amended the law, replacing 'alien Japanese' with 'person ineligible to citizenship,' a classification that still applied to Takahashi.
- Upon his return to California in 1945, the state's Fish and Game Commission denied Takahashi a commercial fishing license solely because of his ineligibility for citizenship.
Procedural Posture:
- Takahashi sued the California Fish and Game Commission in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (a state trial court), seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a commercial fishing license.
- The Superior Court granted the petition, finding the state statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The Fish and Game Commission, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of California (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of California reversed the trial court's decision, upholding the statute's constitutionality.
- Takahashi, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of 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 California statute that denies commercial fishing licenses to resident aliens who are ineligible for United States citizenship violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and conflict with federal authority over immigration?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The California statute violates the Equal Protection Clause and conflicts with federal authority. Lawfully admitted aliens are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees them the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community. A state cannot impose discriminatory burdens on resident aliens that conflict with the federal government's exclusive constitutional power to regulate immigration and naturalization. The state's claim of a 'special public interest' based on its ownership of fish in its coastal waters is a 'slender reed' and insufficient to justify discriminating against lawful state inhabitants and preventing them from earning a living.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Murphy
Yes. The California statute is unconstitutional because it is the direct outgrowth of racial antagonism toward persons of Japanese ancestry. The legislative history, from the initial ban on 'alien Japanese' to the subsequent, thinly veiled prohibition against those 'ineligible to citizenship,' demonstrates that the law was designed solely to discriminate against a specific racial group. It has no legitimate conservation purpose and serves only to give effect to racial animosity, which is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Reed
No. The California statute is a constitutional exercise of state power. States have a sovereign right to regulate and conserve their natural resources, including fisheries, for the benefit of their own citizens. This power is analogous to the established right of states to restrict alien ownership of land or participation in hunting. California is permitted to exclude aliens, particularly those unwilling or unable to become citizens, from exploiting its natural resources under the 'special public interest' doctrine, and the classification of 'ineligible to citizenship' is a permissible one for the state to adopt.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the scope of the 'special public interest' doctrine, which had previously allowed states greater latitude to discriminate against aliens in certain economic spheres. It affirmed that the federal government's power over immigration is paramount and that states cannot create their own classifications to burden lawfully admitted aliens. By invalidating a state law that adopted a federal classification ('ineligible to citizenship') for a discriminatory purpose, the Court established a strong precedent against state-level restrictions on the economic opportunities of non-citizens, paving the way for further challenges to laws that treat aliens differently from citizens in employment and licensing.
