وياما ضد. ولاية كاليفورنيا

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
المحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة
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 لكسيس نكسيس 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
Chief Justice فريدريك مور فينسون Associate Justices هوغو بلاك · ستانلي فورمان ريد فيليكس فرانكفورتر · وليام أو دوغلاس فرانك ميرفي · روبرت جاكسون Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
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

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.