U.S. Hid Facts on Internment, Justices Told

WASHINGTON —  Attorneys for Japanese-Americans interned during World War II told the Supreme Court on Monday that lawyers for the government deliberately concealed reports that cast doubt on its claim that the mass roundup of 120,000 persons on the West Coast was a “military necessity.”

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the “exclusion” of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast, accepting the government’s contention that these residents posed a potential threat if Japanese forces invaded California.

But the high court was not told at the time that, according to intelligence reports, 90% of the Japanese-Americans were undeniably loyal to the United States, and a mass detention was not needed, attorneys said Monday.

Radio Report in Records

Moreover, they said, reports in the court record noting radio contacts between Japanese ships and California residents of Japanese heritage were believed by the FBI to be false but were not removed by then-U.S. Solicitor General Charles Fahy.

“Responsible government officials knew those actions (the internship orders) were not justified, and they concealed that fact from this court,” attorney Benjamin Zelenko told the justices.

It was not until 1982, Zelenko said, that researchers discovered the extent of the government’s deception. Several months later, 19 Japanese-Americans filed suit, seeking a total as high as $4.2 billion in compensation for property lost when they or their parents were forcibly removed from their homes and businesses.

However, Charles Fried, the current solicitor general, said that it was long past the time for such suits to be filed under federal statutes of limitations, and he urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the claims.

Although Fried agreed that the mass detention was a “deplorable episode” that was “wrong” and “shameful,” he said the courts nevertheless should not abandon the “ordinary rules of the law” to revive an outdated suit.

Fried also noted that Congress in 1947 provided funds to cover property losses by persons who were interned and that 26,500 Japanese-Americans received some compensation. Plaintiffs in the current suit say that those funds, which did not result from any litigation, were inadequate.

The case now before the Supreme Court poses complicated procedural questions. Suits seeking compensation from the government have a six-year statute of limitations. The justices must decide whether the clock began ticking after World War II or in 1982, when memos were disclosed that detailed the government’s alleged deception of the high court.

Last year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that disclosures of the early 1980s--in particular the release of the memos suggesting that the wartime high court had been deceived--provided grounds for Japanese-Americans to file suit seeking compensation for lost property.

But Fried disputed claims that the 1944 Supreme Court was deceived and contended that the memos released in 1982 do not go much beyond allegations published as early as 1949--when, he argued, the statute of limitations should have begun.

In addition, he said, a later statute of limitations could have begun in 1976 when President Gerald R. Ford issued a proclamation that apologized to Japanese-Americans for the World War II detention, calling it one of “our national mistakes” and a “setback to fundamental American principles.” This admission of error should have triggered the suits then, Fried said.

If the Japanese-Americans prevail in the case (U.S. vs. Hohri, 86-510), a federal District Court will have to determine what compensation is due. If the government prevails, the suit will be ended.

Scalia Steps Aside

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took no part in the case because he was a member of the appeals court that decided it last year.

In other actions, the high court:

--Agreed to decide whether a federal prosecutor in San Francisco can be sued for investigating voting fraud among Latinos and Chinese-Americans. Last year, a slim majority of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a 1982 investigation by U.S. Atty. Joseph Russoniello had a “chilling effect” on the voting rights of these people and warranted a trial. But the Justice Department appealed to the high court, saying the courts have no right to block a federal investigation (Russoniello vs. Olagues, 86-1217).

--Let stand the drunk-driving arrest of an Indiana man stopped at a police roadblock. The justices have frowned upon police who stop motorists without cause but have not ruled on random stops at roadblocks. Ray Garcia, arrested for being drunk at a roadblock in 1984, said the police action violated the Constitution’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” (Garcia vs. Indiana, 86-1229).