This measure would state the Legislatures support of the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

This measure would state the Legislatures support of the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

This measure would state the Legislatures support of the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was among 120,000 Japanese Americans residing on the west coast of the United States who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelts Executive Order No. 9066, Mitsuye Endo and her family were uprooted from their Sacramento home and incarcerated first in the Tule Lake War Relocation Camp in California, and later in the Topaz War Relocation Camp in Utah. Altogether, Endo spent nearly three years surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers in some of the most remote and desolate areas of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Based on Mitsuye Endos background as a loyal American citizen, a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) from Sacramento who was Christian, had never been to Japan, and had a brother serving in the United States Army, Endo was selected as the plaintiff for a test case challenging Japanese internment; and

WHEREAS, Endos case, Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283, was a habeas corpus case challenging the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 and the War Relocation Authority to detain a concededly loyal American citizen without charges. The case was first filed on July 13, 1942, while Endo was incarcerated at Tule Lake, denied in 1943, and appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1944; and

WHEREAS, While her case was proceeding, Endo rejected an offer from the government for conditional release, choosing instead to remain incarcerated to allow her case to continue through the court system; and

WHEREAS, On December 18, 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Endo, stating that A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized; and

WHEREAS, On December 17, 1944, the Roosevelt administration, which had been alerted in advance of the courts ruling, rescinded Executive Order No. 9066; and

WHEREAS, Beginning on January 2, 1945, only two weeks after the Endo decision, Japanese Americans held in the camps were released and able to return to the west coast of the United States. With the exception of Tule Lake, the incarceration camps began closing shortly thereafter; and

WHEREAS, It has been noted that the United States Supreme Courts decision in Endo created significant tension with the courts decision in Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States (1944) 323 U.S. 214, which was decided the same day. In short, the court held in Korematsu that the government could criminally punish someone for refusing to be illegally imprisoned; and

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was the only female plaintiff in the four United States Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of military orders selectively affecting over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II; and

WHEREAS, The three remaining plaintiffs included Fred Korematsu, who challenged the exclusion order; Gordon Hirabayashi, who challenged the exclusion and curfew orders; and Minoru Yasui, who challenged the curfew order; and

WHEREAS, Although two of these plaintiffs, Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi, were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Endo, who brought the only victorious legal challenge filed by a Japanese American during World War II, has not; and

WHEREAS, Endo is an authentic American heroine who made a principled, courageous, and historic stand and voluntarily sacrificed her own freedom to secure the rights of all Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes and confined in camps without the benefit of due process; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature supports the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was among 120,000 Japanese Americans residing on the west coast of the United States who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelts Executive Order No. 9066, Mitsuye Endo and her family were uprooted from their Sacramento home and incarcerated first in the Tule Lake War Relocation Camp in California, and later in the Topaz War Relocation Camp in Utah. Altogether, Endo spent nearly three years surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers in some of the most remote and desolate areas of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Based on Mitsuye Endos background as a loyal American citizen, a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) from Sacramento who was Christian, had never been to Japan, and had a brother serving in the United States Army, Endo was selected as the plaintiff for a test case challenging Japanese internment; and

WHEREAS, Endos case, Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283, was a habeas corpus case challenging the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 and the War Relocation Authority to detain a concededly loyal American citizen without charges. The case was first filed on July 13, 1942, while Endo was incarcerated at Tule Lake, denied in 1943, and appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1944; and

WHEREAS, While her case was proceeding, Endo rejected an offer from the government for conditional release, choosing instead to remain incarcerated to allow her case to continue through the court system; and

WHEREAS, On December 18, 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Endo, stating that A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized; and

WHEREAS, On December 17, 1944, the Roosevelt administration, which had been alerted in advance of the courts ruling, rescinded Executive Order No. 9066; and

WHEREAS, Beginning on January 2, 1945, only two weeks after the Endo decision, Japanese Americans held in the camps were released and able to return to the west coast of the United States. With the exception of Tule Lake, the incarceration camps began closing shortly thereafter; and

WHEREAS, It has been noted that the United States Supreme Courts decision in Endo created significant tension with the courts decision in Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States (1944) 323 U.S. 214, which was decided the same day. In short, the court held in Korematsu that the government could criminally punish someone for refusing to be illegally imprisoned; and

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was the only female plaintiff in the four United States Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of military orders selectively affecting over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II; and

WHEREAS, The three remaining plaintiffs included Fred Korematsu, who challenged the exclusion order; Gordon Hirabayashi, who challenged the exclusion and curfew orders; and Minoru Yasui, who challenged the curfew order; and

WHEREAS, Although two of these plaintiffs, Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi, were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Endo, who brought the only victorious legal challenge filed by a Japanese American during World War II, has not; and

WHEREAS, Endo is an authentic American heroine who made a principled, courageous, and historic stand and voluntarily sacrificed her own freedom to secure the rights of all Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes and confined in camps without the benefit of due process; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature supports the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was among 120,000 Japanese Americans residing on the west coast of the United States who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelts Executive Order No. 9066, Mitsuye Endo and her family were uprooted from their Sacramento home and incarcerated first in the Tule Lake War Relocation Camp in California, and later in the Topaz War Relocation Camp in Utah. Altogether, Endo spent nearly three years surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers in some of the most remote and desolate areas of the United States; and

WHEREAS, Based on Mitsuye Endos background as a loyal American citizen, a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) from Sacramento who was Christian, had never been to Japan, and had a brother serving in the United States Army, Endo was selected as the plaintiff for a test case challenging Japanese internment; and

WHEREAS, Endos case, Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283, was a habeas corpus case challenging the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 and the War Relocation Authority to detain a concededly loyal American citizen without charges. The case was first filed on July 13, 1942, while Endo was incarcerated at Tule Lake, denied in 1943, and appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1944; and

WHEREAS, While her case was proceeding, Endo rejected an offer from the government for conditional release, choosing instead to remain incarcerated to allow her case to continue through the court system; and

WHEREAS, On December 18, 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Endo, stating that A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized; and

WHEREAS, On December 17, 1944, the Roosevelt administration, which had been alerted in advance of the courts ruling, rescinded Executive Order No. 9066; and

WHEREAS, Beginning on January 2, 1945, only two weeks after the Endo decision, Japanese Americans held in the camps were released and able to return to the west coast of the United States. With the exception of Tule Lake, the incarceration camps began closing shortly thereafter; and

WHEREAS, It has been noted that the United States Supreme Courts decision in Endo created significant tension with the courts decision in Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States (1944) 323 U.S. 214, which was decided the same day. In short, the court held in Korematsu that the government could criminally punish someone for refusing to be illegally imprisoned; and

WHEREAS, Mitsuye Endo was the only female plaintiff in the four United States Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of military orders selectively affecting over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II; and

WHEREAS, The three remaining plaintiffs included Fred Korematsu, who challenged the exclusion order; Gordon Hirabayashi, who challenged the exclusion and curfew orders; and Minoru Yasui, who challenged the curfew order; and

WHEREAS, Although two of these plaintiffs, Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi, were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Endo, who brought the only victorious legal challenge filed by a Japanese American during World War II, has not; and

WHEREAS, Endo is an authentic American heroine who made a principled, courageous, and historic stand and voluntarily sacrificed her own freedom to secure the rights of all Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes and confined in camps without the benefit of due process; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature supports the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, and to the author for appropriate distribution.

Date of Hearing: August 25, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SJR 12

Author:(Pan) – As Introduced Ver:June 2, 2015

PROPOSED CONSENT

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: MITSUYE ENDO TSUTSUMI: PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM NOMINATION

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE EXPRESS ITS SUPPORT FOR THE NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM OF MITSUYE ENDO TSUTSUMI, who COURAGEOUSLY brought a successful legal challenge to end the internment of japanese americans during wwii?

SYNOPSIS

This non-controversial resolution, sponsored by the Japanese Americans Citizens League (JACL), expresses the Legislature's support for the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is the nation’s highest civilian honor, and is awarded to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. Endo was one of many Japanese Americans who were incarcerated in internment camps during WWII pursuant to Executive Order No. 9066, issued by President Roosevelt in 1942. Endo was the plaintiff in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283, the case that successfully challenged the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 and the War Relocation Authority to detain Japanese-American citizens without charges. The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the case enabled the closure of the relocation camps and led to the release of 110,000 Japanese Americans from forced incarceration. According to proponents of this measure, Endo is an authentic national heroine and deserves to be honored for making a principled and courageous historic stand to challenge her government when a wrong had been committed against her and the Japanese American community. This resolution is supported by several chapters of the JACL and has no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Expresses the Legislature's support for the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Specifically, this measure:

1. Finds that Mitsuye Endo was among 120,000 Japanese Americans residing on the west coast of the United States who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

2. States that, pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order No. 9066, Mitsuye Endo and her family were uprooted from their Sacramento home and incarcerated for nearly three years surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers in some of the most remote and desolate areas of the United States.

3. Finds that Mitsuye Endo was a loyal American citizen, a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) from Sacramento, a Christian, had never been to Japan, and had a brother serving in the United States Army.

4. States that Endo was selected as the plaintiff for a test case (Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283) that challenged the authority of Executive Order No. 9066 and the War Relocation Authority to detain Japanese-American citizens without charges.

5. Finds that the case was first filed on July 13, 1942, while Endo was incarcerated at Tule Lake, denied in 1943, and appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1944; however, while her case was proceeding, Endo rejected an offer from the government for conditional release, choosing instead to remain incarcerated to allow her case to continue through the court system.

6. Finds that on December 18, 1944, the United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Endo, stating that “A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or a saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to that objective is unauthorized."

7. States that on December 17, 1944, the Roosevelt administration, which had been alerted in advance of the court’s ruling, rescinded Executive Order No. 9066, and beginning on January 2, 1945, only two weeks after the Endo decision, Japanese Americans held in the camps were released and able to return to the west coast of the United States.

8. Finds that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Endo created significant tension with the court’s decision in Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States (1944) 323 U.S. 214, which was decided the same day and held that the government could criminally punish someone for refusing to be illegally imprisoned.

9. Finds that Endo was the only female plaintiff in the four United States Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of military orders selectively affecting over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. Further finds that unlike fellow plaintiffs Fred Korematsu and Gordon Hirabayashi, who were later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Endo, who brought the only victorious legal challenge filed by a Japanese American during World War II, has not received that award.

10. Finds that Endo is an authentic American heroine who made a principled, courageous, and historic stand and voluntarily sacrificed her own freedom to secure the rights of all Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes and confined in camps without the benefit of due process.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Amendment V, U.S. Constitution.)

2. Provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. (Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this measure is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: This resolution, sponsored by the Japanese Americans Citizens League (JACL), expresses the Legislature's support for the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi ("Mitsuye Endo") for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. According to the author:

Mitsuye Endo brought the only victorious legal challenge to the incarceration filed by a Japanese American during WWII. Her story and courage are not nearly as well-known as those of her male counterparts (Minoru Yasui and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu), whose lawsuits were unsuccessful in rescinding the orders of curfew and exclusion. The decision in Ex Parte Endo enabled the closure of the Relocation Camps and the release of 110,000 Japanese Americans from their forced incarceration . . . [This resolution] would recognize this exemplary American and authentic national heroine, who made a principled, courageous and historic stand to challenge her government when a wrong had been committed against her and the Japanese American community.

Background on Mitsuye Endo, her family’s internment, and subsequent legal challenge. According to the JACL, Mitsuye Endo was a clerical worker for the State of California, and was summarily dismissed with all other Japanese Americans from state employment following the attack on Pearl Harbor. She was among the 110,000 Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast who were forcibly taken from their homes pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. Issued on February 19, 1942, Executive Order 9066 gave the military broad powers to exclude any citizen from coastal areas along the West Coast, ranging from Washington to California, as determined by the military. A month later, on March 18, 1942, the President issued Executive Order 9102, which established the War Relocation Authority and authorized the establishment of relocation camps to house persons whose removal was required by Order 9066 “in the interests of national security.”

A few days later, Congress enacted the Act of March 21, 1942, which ratified and confirmed Executive Order No. 9066. The Act provided as follows:

That whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense.

Uprooted from their residence in Sacramento, Endo and her family were first incarcerated in the Tule Lake Relocation Camp, and later relocated to the Topaz Camp in Utah. They were incarcerated for a total of almost three years. On July 13, 1942, attorneys working with the Japanese American Citizens League filed a habeas corpus petition for Endo’s release from Tule Lake, where she and her family were being held at the time. According to the JACL, Mitsuye Endo was believed to be an ideal plaintiff for a test case challenging the incarceration of Japanese Americans, because, among other things, she had never been to Japan, had a brother serving in the U.S. Army, was Christian, and was a demonstrably loyal American citizen.

Landmark decision in the Endo case. Endo's petition was first heard in the trial court in July 1942, where it languished for a year before the trial court dismissed the petition with no explanation in July 1943. Endo's attorneys appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, rather than ruling on the petition, took the unusual step of certifying the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 11, 1944, the Supreme Court heard both Ex parte Mitsuye Endo (1944) 323 U.S. 283 and the more well-known case Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) 323 U.S. 214.

Endo's petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleged that she is a loyal and law-abiding citizen of the United States, that no charge had been made against her, that she was being unlawfully detained, and that she was confined in the Relocation Center under armed guard and held there against her will. (323 U.S. 283, 295.)

The Department of Justice and the War Relocation Authority, representing the state, made a number of key concessions, including, among other things, that: (1) Endo was a loyal and law-abiding citizen; (2) Endo was not detained on any charge and not suspected of disloyalty; (3) Endo, having been granted conditional leave, was not required to still be held within the relocation center. (Id. at p. 294-295.) Furthermore, the government also conceded that it was beyond the power of the War Relocation Authority to detain citizens against whom no charges of disloyalty or subversiveness have been made for a period longer than that necessary to separate the loyal from the disloyal and to provide the necessary guidance for relocation (Ibid), and that Endo's detention was "not directly connected with the prevention of espionage and sabotage at the present time." (323 U.S. 283, 298.) Notwithstanding these concessions, however, the government argued that Executive Order No. 9102 "confers power to make regulations necessary and proper for controlling situations created by the exercise of the powers expressly conferred for protection against espionage and sabotage" (Ibid) and that continued detention for an additional period (even after leave clearance had been granted, as in Endo's case) is an essential step in the evacuation program. (Id. at p. 295.)

In December 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision and rendered a unanimous 9-0 decision in Endo’s favor. In ordering Endo's release, however, it should be noted that the Court took some pains to avoid addressing the larger question of whether the detention and exclusion of Japanese Americans was constitutional. The question framed by the court, for example, focused more narrowly on whether the Act of March 21, 1942 and Executive Order Numbers 9066 and 9102, which authorized the exclusion of all persons of Japanese ancestry from certain military areas, allowed the continued detention of citizens of Japanese ancestry even if established that they are loyal and no longer a threat to the United States.

Recognizing the government's concessions about Endo's loyalty and lack of threat to national security, the Court held that the implied authority of Act and the Executive Orders to detain citizens was not in this case "narrowly confined to the precise purpose of the evacuation program" (Id. at 302), which included, among other things, the segregation of loyal from disloyal evacuees and the continued detention of the disloyal. As reflected in this resolution, the Court's majority opinion famously states:

We are of the view that Mitsuye Endo should be given her liberty. In reaching that conclusion we do not come to the underlying constitutional issues which have been argued. For we conclude that, whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure. (Id. at p. 297.)

A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind, not of race, creed, or color. He who is loyal is by definition not a spy or saboteur. When the power to detain is derived from the power to protect the war effort against espionage and sabotage, detention which has no relationship to the objective is unauthorized. (Id. at 302.)

In his concurring opinion, Justice Owen Roberts wrote:

I conclude, therefore, that the court is squarely faced with a serious constitutional question: whether the relator's detention violated the guarantees of the Bill of Rights of the federal Constitution and especially the guarantee of due process of law. There can be but one answer to that question. An admittedly loyal citizen has been deprived of her liberty for a period of years. Under the Constitution she should be free to come and go as she pleases. Instead, her liberty of motion and other innocent activities have been prohibited and conditioned. She should be discharged.

Although the decision in Endo effectively freed Endo and other Japanese Americans from incarceration, the decision is difficult to reconcile with the court's holding in Korematsu (1944) 323 U.S. 214, decided the same day, in which the court upheld the constitutionality of the underlying Executive Orders providing for the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast. In the Korematsu decision, in which Justice Roberts was the only dissenter, the Court essentially accepted the government's argument that military necessity justified the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast, and allowed their punishment for refusing to be incarcerated. In Endo, however, the Court sought a more narrow resolution by holding only that under the Act and Executive Orders, the government had no legal authority to continue to imprison a citizen who was concededly loyal and thus posed no threat to national security.

Background on the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the nation’s highest civilian honor, and, according to the White House website, “presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors." Previous recipients of the Medal of Freedom in the area of activism include Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Senator Daniel Inouye, as well as fellow Japanese-American activists Fred Korematsu (awarded in 1998) and Gordon Hirabayashi (awarded in 2012).

On May 11, 2015, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) sent a letter to President Obama urging him to posthumously bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mitsuye Endo Tsustsumi. In his letter, Schatz wrote: “Awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mitsuye Endo would provide long-overdue recognition of the courage and sacrifice of a civil rights heroine whose low-key demeanor belied her steadfast pursuit of justice during World War II.” (See http://www.rafu.com/2015/05/schatz-recommends-mitsuye-endo-for-presidential-medal-of-freedom). Proponents note that despite the government's offer of conditional leave to Endo during the litigation, she agreed to remain confined so her case could continue through the court system. This resolution would declare the support of the California Legislature for the nomination of Mitsuye Endo for the Medal of Freedom.

Previous Legislation. ACR 19 (Pan), Res. Chapter 104, Stats. 2013, issued an official apology to Japanese Americans who were dismissed from their state civil service positions in 1942 as a result of Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 of 1942. Mitsuye Endo was also one of these dismissed state employees.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Japanese Americans Citizens League (JACL), Berkeley Chapter

Japanese Americans Citizens League, Central California District Council

Japanese Americans Citizens League, Sacramento Chapter

Japanese Americans Citizens League, San Jose Chapter

Japanese Americans Citizens League, Silicon Valley Chapter

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: SJR 12

Author: Pan (D), et al.

Introduced: 6/2/15

Vote: 21

SUBJECT: Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi: Presidential Medal of Freedom nomination

SOURCE: Japanese American Citizens League

DIGEST: This resolution states the Legislature’s support of the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

ANALYSIS: This resolution makes the following legislative findings:

1. Mitsuye Endo was among 120,000 Japanese Americans residing on the west coast of the United States who were forced from their homes in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

2. Pursuant to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order No. 9066, Mitsuye Endo and her family were uprooted from their Sacramento home and incarcerated first in the Tule Lake War Relocation Camp in California, and later in the Topaz War Relocation Camp in Utah. Altogether, Endo spent nearly three years surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers in some of the most remote and desolate areas of the United States.

3. Based on Mitsuye Endo’s background as a loyal American citizen, a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American) from Sacramento who was Christian, had never been to Japan, and had a brother serving in the United States Army, Endo was selected as the plaintiff for a test case challenging Japanese internment.

4. While her case was proceeding, Endo rejected an offer from the government for conditional release, choosing instead to remain incarcerated to allow her case to continue through the court system.

5. Mitsuye Endo was the only female plaintiff in the four United States Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of military orders selectively affecting over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

6. Two of the three remaining plaintiffs were awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Endo, who brought the only victorious legal challenge filed by a Japanese American during World War II, has not.

7. Endo is an authentic American heroine who made a principled, courageous, and historic stand and voluntarily sacrificed her own freedom to secure the rights of all Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes and confined in camps without the benefit of due process.

This resolution supports the nomination of Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/15/15)

Japanese American Citizens League (source)

Berkeley Chapter of Japanese American Citizens League

Central California District Council of the Japanese American Citizens League

Silicon Valley Chapter of Japanese American Citizens League

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/15/15)

None received

Prepared by: Karen Chow / SFA / (916) 651-1520

6/15/15 16:26:25

**** END ****