Ex Parte Mitsuye Endo

Summary

Justice Douglas's opinion held that the War Relocation Authority lacked authority to detain a concededly loyal American citizen or condition her release on compliance with its leave procedures. The Court construed the governing statute and executive orders narrowly without deciding their constitutionality, and concluded that general appropriations did not ratify the challenged detention authority. It also held that Endo's transfer outside the district did not defeat previously acquired habeas jurisdiction when a responsible custodian remained within reach of the court's process. The Court reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with her unconditional release. Justice Murphy concurred, without any stated joinder, arguing additionally that the detention program was unconstitutional racial discrimination and that unconditional release should include freedom to return to California. Justice Roberts concurred in the result, without any stated joinder, concluding that the political branches had authorized the detention but that it violated constitutional guarantees of liberty and due process.