45-46 Japanese War Relocation Centers, Subcommittee Report on S. 23-26 Hearings, Subcommittee of the Senate Military Affairs Committee on S. 96, supra, note 7 Report and Minority Views of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities on Japanese War Relocation Centers, H.Rep. It is pointed out that the regulations and procedures of the Authority were disclosed in reports to the Congress and in Congressional hearings. 139, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., approved Jand 58 Stat. ![]() It is argued, to be sure, that there has been Congressional ratification of the detention of loyal evacuees under the leave regulations of the Authority through the appropriation of sums for the expenses of the Authority.On its face it is no more than a recording requirement. But we find no indication that it was added to change the scope of jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. The last clause was added by § 6 of the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. A circuit judge shall have the same power to grant writs of habeas corpus within his circuit, that a district judge has within his district and the order of the circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had." "The several justices of the Supreme Court and the several judges of the circuit courts of appeal and of the district courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty. Only an order directed to the warden of the penitentiary could effectuate his discharge and the warden as well as the prisoner was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. The sole respondent was the commanding officer. After that decision and before his petition for certiorari was filed here, he was removed from the custody of the Army to a federal penitentiary in a different district and circuit. The District Court denied his petition and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that order. 755, the relator challenged a judgment of court martial by habeas corpus. And the Solicitor General argued the case here. But the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California argued before the District Court that the petition should not be granted. It does not appear that any respondent was ever served with process or appeared in the proceedings. The certificate of questions of law was filed here on April 22, 1944, and on May 8, 1944, we ordered the entire record to be certified to this Court. Shortly thereafter appellant was transferred from the Tule Lake Relocation Center to the Central Utah Relocation Center located at Topaz, Utah, where she is presently detained. ![]() That petition was denied by the District Court in July, 1943, and an appeal was perfected to the Circuit Court of Appeals in August, 1943. In July, 1942, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, asking that she be discharged and restored to liberty. She was evacuated from Sacramento, California, in 1942, pursuant to certain military orders which we will presently discuss, and was removed to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center located at Newell, Modoc County, California. Mitsuye Endo, hereinafter designated as the appellant, is an American citizen of Japanese ancestry.That end may be served and the decree of the court made effective if a respondent who has custody of the prisoner is within reach of the court's process even though the prisoner has been removed from the district since the suit was begun. ![]() § 452) gives it power "to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty." That objective may be in no way impaired or defeated by the removal of the prisoner from the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. The statute upon which the jurisdiction of the District Court in habeas corpus proceedings rests (Rev. We only hold that the District Court acquired jurisdiction in this case and that the removal of Mitsuye Endo did not cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she is remains within the district.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |