Frick v. Webb

Background

Frick is a California citizen who owns 28 shares in a farming corporation that holds about 2,200 acres. Satow was born in Japan and is a subject of the Emperor of Japan. Frick wants to sell the shares to Satow, but California officials threatened to enforce the state’s Alien Land Law, which limits acquisition of agricultural land and related interests by “ineligible aliens.” The sellers asked a court to block enforcement while the lawsuit proceeds; that temporary injunction was denied and the denial was appealed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the California law conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment or with the treaty between the United States and Japan. The Court concluded it does not. Reading the treaty and the statute together, the Justices said the treaty does not give foreign nationals a right to own, lease, or use agricultural land and that the State may limit even indirect control, such as owning stock in a landholding corporation. The Court therefore upheld the statute’s restriction on transfers to ineligible aliens and affirmed the lower court’s refusal to grant the temporary injunction.

Real world impact

The decision allows California to enforce its restrictions against transfers of land or land-linked corporate stock to persons classified as ineligible aliens. Sellers and buyers planning transfers of farm land or related stock to affected foreign nationals may face state penalties, including possible seizure of property. Because this ruling affirmed only the denial of a temporary injunction, enforcement and further litigation may continue in other proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices (McReynolds and Brandeis) said the case should have been dismissed for lacking a justiciable question, and one Justice (Sutherland) did not participate.