Jordan v. Tashiro
Headline: Court allows Japanese residents in California to form a hospital corporation and lease land, rejecting state refusal and holding the 1911 treaty broadly protects such commercial business activities.
Holding: The Court ruled that the 1911 treaty with Japan allows Japanese subjects living in California to operate a hospital, lease land for that purpose, and use a corporation as an appropriate means to do so.
- Allows Japanese residents in California to form hospital corporations and lease land.
- Limits state law refusal when a federal treaty grants the privilege.
- Confirms broad treaty interpretation for other business activities.
Summary
Background
A group of Japanese subjects living in California submitted articles to create the “Japanese Hospital of Los Angeles.” The California Secretary of State refused to file the papers, citing the state’s Alien Land Law, which limits land use by certain noncitizens unless a treaty allows it. The applicants sued to force the state to accept the articles, and the California Supreme Court ordered the filing based on the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1911.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the 1911 treaty allowed Japanese subjects to operate a hospital, lease land for that purpose, and use a corporation to do so. The Court applied the rule that treaties should be read broadly to give effect to their plain purpose. Finding that the treaty lets Japanese citizens “carry on trade,” lease land for “commercial purposes,” and do anything incident to trade, the Court concluded those terms cover operating a hospital as a business. It also held that using a corporation is a normal and appropriate way to carry on such an enterprise.
Real world impact
The effect is practical: the Secretary of State could not refuse to file the hospital’s articles on the ground of the Alien Land Law because the treaty granted the needed privileges. Japanese residents in California were therefore entitled to form a corporation and lease land to run a hospital under the treaty’s protections. The decision interprets the treaty broadly to protect business activities beyond narrow buy-and-sell trade, and it resolves the direct conflict between the state refusal and the federal treaty.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?