Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Porterfield v. Webb, Attorney General of California, 263 U.S. 225 (1923)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary injunction sought by appellants Porterfield and Mizuno against the California Attorney General and district attorney. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of California's Alien Land Law, which prohibited agricultural land leases to ineligible aliens like Mizuno. The Court had previously upheld a similar Washington state law in Terrace v. Thompson, and found the California law raised no new issues. It held that states have wide discretion in classifying groups for legislation, and California's choice to exclude only ineligible aliens from land ownership was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Porterfield v. Webb, Attorney General of California, 263 U.S. 225 (1923)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary injunction sought by appellants Porterfield and Mizuno against the California Attorney General and district attorney. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of California's Alien Land Law, which prohibited agricultural land leases to ineligible aliens like Mizuno. The Court had previously upheld a similar Washington state law in Terrace v. Thompson, and found the California law raised no new issues. It held that states have wide discretion in classifying groups for legislation, and California's choice to exclude only ineligible aliens from land ownership was reasonable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1923-11-12 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 263 U.S. 225 Docket: 28

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary injunction sought by appellants Porterfield and Mizuno against the California Attorney General and district attorney. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of California's Alien Land Law, which prohibited agricultural land leases to ineligible aliens like Mizuno. The Court had previously upheld a similar Washington state law in Terrace v. Thompson, and found the California law raised no new issues. It held that states have wide discretion in classifying groups for legislation, and California's choice to exclude only ineligible aliens from land ownership was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    19 views3 pages

    Porterfield v. Webb, Attorney General of California, 263 U.S. 225 (1923)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary injunction sought by appellants Porterfield and Mizuno against the California Attorney General and district attorney. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of California's Alien Land Law, which prohibited agricultural land leases to ineligible aliens like Mizuno. The Court had previously upheld a similar Washington state law in Terrace v. Thompson, and found the California law raised no new issues. It held that states have wide discretion in classifying groups for legislation, and California's choice to exclude only ineligible aliens from land ownership was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    263 U.S.

    225
    44 S.Ct. 21
    68 L.Ed. 278

    PORTERFIELD et al.
    v.
    WEBB, Attorney General of California, et al.
    No. 28.
    Argued April 23, 24, 1923.
    Decided Nov. 12, 1923.

    Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for appellants.


    [Argument of Counsel from pages 225-227 intentionally omitted]
    Mr. U. S. Webb, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
    [Argument of Counsel from pages 228-230 intentionally omitted]
    Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

    Appellants brought this suit to enjoin the above-named Attorney General and
    district attorney from enforcing the California Alien Land Law, submitted by
    the initiative, and approved by the electors, November 2, 1920 (St. 1921, p.
    lxxxiii).

    Appellants are residents of California. Porterfield is a citizen of the United


    States and of California. Mizuno was born in Japan of Japanese parents and is a
    subject of the emperor of Japan. Porterfield is the owner of a farm in Los
    Angeles county containing 80 acres of land, which is particularly adapted to
    raising vegetables, and which for some years has been devoted to that and other
    agricultural purposes. The complaint alleges that Mizuno is a capable farmer
    and a desirable person to become a tenant of the land, and that Porterfield
    desires to lease the land to him for a term of five years, and that he desires to
    accept the lease, and that the lease would be made, but for the act complained
    of, and it is alleged that the appellees, as Attorney General and district attorney,
    have threatened to enforce the act against the appellants if they enter into such

    lease, and will forfeit, or attempt to forfeit, the leasehold interest to the state,
    and will prosecute the appellants criminally for violation of the act. It is further
    alleged that the act is so drastic, and the penalties attached to a violation of it
    are so great, that neither of the appellants may make the lease, even for the
    purpose of testing the constitutionality of the act, and that, unless the court
    shall determine its validity in this suit, appellants will be compelled to submit to
    it, whether valid or invalid, and thereby will be deprived of their property
    without due process of law and denied equal protection of the laws.
    3

    Appellants made a motion for a temporary injunction to restrain appellees,


    during the pendency of the suit, from bringing or permitting to be brought any
    proceeding for the purpose of enforcing the act against the appellants. This was
    heard by three judges as provided in section 266 of the Judicial Code (Comp.
    St. 1243). The motion was denied.

    The act provides in sections 1 and 2 as follows:

    'Section 1. All aliens eligible to citizenship under the laws of the United States
    may acquire, possess, enjoy, transmit, and inherit real property, or any interest
    therein, in this state, in the same manner and to the same extent as citizens of
    the United States, except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.

    'See. 2. All aliens other than those mentioned in section one of this act may
    acquire, possess, enjoy and transfer real property, or any interest therein, in this
    state, in the manner and to the extent and for the purpose prescribed by any
    treaty now existing between the government of the United States and the nation
    or country of which such alien is a citizen or subject, and not otherwise.'

    Other sections provide penalties by escheat and imprisonment for violation of


    section 2.

    The treaty between the United States and Japan (37 Stat. 1504-1509) does not
    confer upon Japanese subjects the privilege of acquiring or leasing land for
    agricultural purposes. Terrace et al. v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 44 Sup. Ct.
    15, 68 L. Ed..

    Appellants contend that the law denies to ineligible aliens equal protection of
    the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it forbids them to
    lease land in the state although the right to do so is conferred upon all other
    aliens. They also contend that the act is unconstitutional, because it deprives
    Porterfield of the right to enter into contracts for the leasing of his realty, and

    deprives Mizuno of his liberty and properly by debarring him from entering
    into a contract for the purpose of earning a livelihood in a lawful occupation.
    10

    This case is similar to Terrace et al. v. Thompson, supra. In that case the
    grounds upon which the Washington Alien Land Law (Laws Wash. 1921, c.
    50) was attacked included those on which the California act is assailed in this
    case. There the prohibited class was made up of aliens who had not in good
    faith declared intention to become citizens. The class necessarily includes all
    ineligible aliens, and in addition thereto all eligible aliens who have failed so to
    declare. In the case now before us the prohibited class includes ineligible aliens
    only. In the matter of classification, the states have wide discretion. Each has its
    own problems, depending on circumstances existing there. It is not always
    practical or desirable that legislation shall be the same in different states. We
    cannot say that the failure of the California Legislature to extend the prohibited
    class, so as to include eligible aliens who have failed to declare their intention to
    become citizens of the United States, was arbitrary or unreasonable. See Miller
    v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 383, 384, 35 Sup. Ct. 342, 59 L. Ed. 628, L. R. A.
    1915F, 829, and cases cited.

    11

    Our decision in Terrace et al. v. Thompson, supra, controls the decision of all
    questions raised here.

    12

    The order of the District Court is affirmed.

    13

    Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS think there is no


    justiciable question involved, and that the case should have been dismissed on
    that ground.

    14

    Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND took no part in the consideration or decision of this


    case.

    You might also like