1913 years and 1920 years of California "Alien Land Law" in the present case was sentenced unconstitutional, it violates the laws of the United States citizens enjoy equal rights on the guarantee.

Case resulted in 1913 years and 1920 years of California's "Alien Land Law." Under the Act, can not become citizens of the U.S. residents can not own land, but can not become citizens who refers to a person other than whites and blacks. Washington State in 1886 was first through the "Alien Land Law", 1913 years to 1924 years, other states have also developed "Alien Land Law" to require foreigners, particularly Chinese, can not own land, if the lease, then the lease shall not be longer than three years.

1913 in California, "Alien Land Law" is aimed primarily at residents in the territory of Japan, because local farmers fear of Japanese immigrants have better agricultural techniques, local agriculture will lose their competitive edge; to appease their emotions, California through the "Foreigner's Land law. "

But residents of Japan soon found countermeasures, they use the name of the American-born children of the purchase of land, while he became the guardian of the land, in order to evade the "Alien Land Law."
Countermeasures to deal with Japanese farmers, California in 1920 was revised "alien land law", including: If the name of a person to others, the purchase of land, will be considered intentionally evade the "Alien Land Law." The amended law the burden of proof to migrate to individuals, the defendant must prove that he purchased the land for other people really give each other gifts, not intended to circumvent the law, or the purchase of land will be confiscated.

1920 Year "Alien Land Law" has once again been modified: If the name of another person to buy land, the law has been identified as not only to regulate this law and can not be naturalized as a citizen shall not be a guardian of the land. However, this ban on guardians, in 1922 , was the California Supreme Court in the case Yano (Estate of Tetsubmi Yano, 188 Cal. 645) is declared invalid.

1934 Year Hill (KajiroOyama) , one can not become naturalized Japanese citizen, bought six acres of land, on the year-old son, Fred Fred name; 1937 , he bought two acres. 1942 , due to World War II, the United States anti-Japanese sentiment, Fred, and local land held by the Japanese government to take over all were.

1944 , the State of California to apply, to the hill in 1934 and 1937 of the illegal purchase of eight acres of land, because of deliberate evasion "Alien Land Law", shall be confiscated. District Court of First Instance sentenced the state win, the California Supreme Court upheld until the Supreme Court to " a higher court to take the case to the lower court tune volume writ ( Writ of certiorari ) " approach by President Truman's secretary of state Ai District Health ( Dean Acheson ) on behalf of the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and argued :

First: "Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act to" win the Fred Hill as U.S. citizens before the law and enjoy equal protection rights; Second: it rejects the hill in the law of equal protection; Third: the case of conflict with procedural justice The Government shall, after the statute of limitations, arbitrary seizure of personal property.

Supreme Court to eight pairs of a number of votes in favor of contracting hill. Presiding Justice Vinson ( Chief Justice Vinson) according to The Hill's first proposition, which is "alien land law" in this case deprived Fred Hill as a legal U.S. citizens enjoyed equal rights protection, but the Vinson California sentencing did not take this "alien land law" unconstitutional. His views on this issue of race is quite conservative. At that time, another judge flange Ford ( Frankfurter) at Vincent in 1953 , died, said: "His death is that I see only evidence that God exists." prevailing opinion was that: "If Vincent is not due to death Justice was Warren ( Chief Justice Earl Warren ) replaced Brown case ( Brown VS. Board of Education) results will be completely different. "

Another case Justice Black ( Justice Hugo Black ) that the case should be broader legal, overturned the original bill. He believes California "alien land law," the basic terms, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection principles, but also with federal immigration laws and treaties related to the conflict, and its purpose is to discriminate against the Japanese. Justice Philippine ink ( Justice Frank Murphy ) also said: "Foreigner's Land Law" is simply racial discrimination, the Constitution must be condemned.

Although the case did not make the hill 1913 years and 1920 years of California "Alien Land Law" was repealed, but it has become an important precedent. 1952 , the Supreme Court in the case of SeayFauci ( SeiJujii V. California ) California finally pronounced "Alien Land Law" unconstitutional, the law in 1956 , was abolished.