SPEAKER_00 0:01

This is History for the Reckoning, a podcast that dives deep into the history that's hard to hear but critical to understand. Season 1, American Concentration Camps. The story of World War II Japanese Incarceration. Welcome back to the podcast. I'm your host, Spencer Ford. Last episode, we learned about how the history we've discussed in this podcast came into the public consciousness, and how members of the Japanese-American community fought for redress and reparations. Today we're looking at another way in which people have fought to right the wrongs of the past, mainly through the law. You'll remember our episode with Lorene Bonai about the Supreme Court cases, Yasui, Hirobayashi, Koromatsu, and Endo. Well, that episode wasn't the end of the story, and taking us through that fight that continued long after World War II are two legal scholars, Lori Banai and Peggy Nagai. We mentioned Lori's storied career previously, but it's relevant to mention here that she was on the legal team that challenged Fred Koromatsu's conviction. Joining her is Peggy Nagai, a lawyer and diversity and inclusion consultant with a long career in the law and social justice, including criminal defense work, law school administration, and serving on the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund Board of Directors, distributing $3.5 million in grants aimed at redressing civil liberties violations committed in the 1940s against Japanese Americans, including her own parents. Directly relevant to our topic today, Peggy was on the legal team that challenged Minri Yasui's conviction. Lori and Peggy, thank you so much for coming on again, and Peggy for the first time and sharing your expertise with us.

SPEAKER_02 1:34

Thank you so much for having us.

SPEAKER_00 1:37

So I'm excited to have these two on because they were in the trenches. They were part of challenging these wrongs of the past and trying to make them right, reopening these cases, and in the case of Mitsue Endo, giving her due recognition for what she had gone through and what she had done. So as far as reopening these cases, uh, how did this happen? How did you guys get involved? And what did it even mean to reopen them?

SPEAKER_02 2:01

Great. Thank you, Spencer. Um so, yes, during the earlier episode of the podcast, you heard about the four Supreme Court cases involving challenges to the Japanese American incarceration. Just a reminder, Gordon Hirabayashi's and Minyasui's um cases upheld the orders that were issued against Japanese Americans during World War II that led to their ultimate incarceration. And Mitsua Endo's case held that the government could not continue to incarcerate conceitedly loyal citizens. In the decades that followed, these Supreme Court cases affirming their convictions, Gordon, Fred, and Minn wished for an opportunity to revisit them and reopen the cases so that it could be proved that the court was wrong and provide at the same time some measure of justice for the Japanese-American community.

SPEAKER_00 2:57

Was that to say that from the moment these convictions came down, or at what point was there a real motion for we feel these convictions were unjust?

SPEAKER_02 3:05

I think they felt the convictions were unjust as soon as they happened. And I and that when the Supreme Court decisions came down, they were profoundly surprised and disappointed. I know Fred Koromatsu really felt that of course the Supreme Court was going to rule for him. It's just such an obvious injustice. And so I think the Supreme Court opinions were um were just so shocking. And and there was just a wish and a hope that he'd they'd be able to do something about it. I know Fred has told me that just in the back of his mind, as he was going through life, he just one day wanted to be able to do something about it. An opportunity arose 40 years later, almost 40 years later. In 1982, Professor Peter Irons, a professor at UMass Amherst, while researching a book, discovered shocking documents in the government's own records. Those documents, along with others found by archival researcher Eiko Herzeg Yoshinaga, proved that the government had suppressed, altered, and destroyed material evidence while it was arguing Fred Gordon and men's cases before the Supreme Court. For example, first, the documents revealed that the final report of General DeWitt that explained the basis for his orders and which the government submitted to the court in Fred's case had been altered to make it support and not contradict the government's position before the court. In Fred's case, the government had consistently argued and the court agreed that the mass removal was necessary because there was not sufficient time to separate the loyal from the disloyal. However, DeWitt's report explained that lack of time was not the basis for his orders. Instead, he said the reality was that one could never separate the quote sheep from the goats within the Japanese American community, no matter how much time one had. In essence, it expressed the racist notion that one could never tell a loyal Japanese American from a disloyal one. When it was discovered that the report contradicted the government's argument that there was insufficient time, the report was ordered revised to support the government's argument before the court. One copy, so the the they ordered that all the reports be rounded up, all the reports that had gone out be rounded up. Those reports were ordered destroyed, they were burned. And the original report was revised to be consistent with the government's argument that said there was not sufficient time to separate the loyal from the disloyal. One copy of the original report was not destroyed, and a soldier's memo that said that today he destroyed copies of this report was not destroyed. The Supreme Court in Fred's case saw only the altered version of the report. Further, the government had within its possession intelligence reports from the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Office of Naval Intelligence that refuted the necessity of any mass incarceration, and the government's attorneys failed to disclose these reports to the court. The FBI and FCC flatly refuted DeWitt's claims that Japanese Americans had engaged in illegal shortage, illegal radio transmissions and illegal shortage ship signaling. And Kenneth Ringel of the Office of Naval Intelligence said that thorough intelligence had been conducted of the Japanese-American community that any issues could be and should be handled on an individualized basis and that there was no basis for mass incarceration. Justice Department lawyer Edward Ennis urged his superiors to tell the court of these reports, warning that any other course of action would approximate, and using his words, suppression of evidence. In a memo to Solicitor General Fahy, Ennis urged, quote, I think we should consider very carefully whether we do not have a duty to advise the court of the existence of the Ringo memoranda. It occurs to me that any other course of conduct might approximate the suppression of evidence. End quote. He was overruled.

SPEAKER_00 7:34

Wow. That's all right. It's just so interesting to me that if a case is going to be revisited, usually it's because new evidence came to light. But this was new evidence of outright malfeasance and hiding evidence that occurred at the time. That's just crazy.

SPEAKER_02 7:52

From the government's own records.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

They're the ones that kept the receipts, that's true.

SPEAKER_02 7:57

Based on the findings that the government had lied to the Supreme Court, legal teams were formed to reopen Fred Gordon and men's World War II cases. We filed petitions for writ of error quorum nobus. We're not taught this in law school. You ask any lawyer, they've probably never heard of a writ of error quorum nobus. And actually, when I went to go file Fred's case, the clerk said that he hadn't seen one of these in ages. It's a pretty rare procedure. Quorum nobus is a Latin phrase that means before us. A petition for rid of error quorum nobus asked the court to correct a fundamental error committed before it that resulted in a manifest injustice. Three identical petitions were filed, one in San Francisco for Fred, one in Portland, Oregon for Minn, and one in Seattle for Gordon. And as a result, all three men had their convictions vacated. The lawyers who joined these teams were really remarkable. They stepped forward to volunteer endless hours. They spent their evenings and weekends and long meetings, conducted legal research, preparing draft after draft after draft of papers, reviewed thousands of documents, and the team supported each other. Although the lawyers brought these cases in the names of these three individuals, I think all of us really felt that we were doing this for, in essence, our families, our Japanese American community, and exercising the skills that we had learned in law school to basically defend the Constitution.

SPEAKER_00 9:32

Yeah, can you tell me, yeah, about the personality of these people that were involved? Is this a largely uh coalition of Japanese Americans that are kind of getting their time in the sun? Or is this uh bleeding hearts of all stripes? Or yeah, how did this team get formed?

SPEAKER_02 9:49

They were multicultural um teams, um uh people from all different backgrounds, um, but largely we were all Japanese Americans, third generation Japanese Americans whose families had been incarcerated. Peggy's family, my family. Um, Catherine Bon Knight was head was lead counsel for Hirobayashi initially, and she happens to be my sister. Um and so um it was multicultural. We had um all kinds of different people helping us, um, but largely there were Japanese Americans.

SPEAKER_01 10:22

Uh I definitely had a multicultural team because I was in Eugene at the University of Oregon Law School uh as assistant dean there, and we had three Asian attorneys from Eugene, Mary Mori, Fern Ng, and Bert Fukumoto. We also had law students, uh Jeffrey Beaver, uh Laverne Um Cole, who they were African-American, Jim Egan, who's a white guy, and then we had Frank Schuman, who was Minn's friend from a long time ago and wrote a book, Don Wilner, who started practicing law the day I was born, uh, white civil rights attorney from Portland, Scott Meisner, Clayton Patrick, Steve Griffith. So very different, very up and down the I-5 corridor from Portland to Eugene, different generations, uh, and uh really just the multicultural, multiracial legal team.

SPEAKER_00 11:19

Yeah, so uh we talked about this research brings to light this horrible malfeasance by the government in the past. So I'll throw it back to you, Peggy. How did that coming to light end up with this team being formed? What are the steps between there?

SPEAKER_01 11:33

Peter Irons contacted uh all three. He contacted Min, he might have contacted Min first, I'm not sure. Min, Gordon, and and Fred. Okay, wow.

SPEAKER_00 11:46

He said, I've been doing research and I found that there were terrible mismanagements of your cases. Here's the evidence.

SPEAKER_01 11:51

Yes, yes. And of course, Min, who had jumped on the cases in the 40s, said, I'm in, I want to do this. Uh I think he'd been waiting all his career to get a second uh chance at reopening his case. So, yes, that's how we found out. And then we got connected, and then um, you know, we I started building this team, and then I left Portland and went to Eugene. So I had to build the team from Eugene to Portland.

SPEAKER_02 12:20

I want to add on to how we got from Peter to everything else. So everything that that um Peggy said is absolutely true is that Peter went and talked to the three different men. Um, and then it was just an interesting coincidence of things because Peter found this evidence, but he also knew what quorum nobis was, which is unusual because he had his own quorum nobis case before. And so he knew that there was a case there. But Peter was not a litigator, he was a he was a professor, right? He didn't have a law firm, he wasn't a litigator, so he knew that there had to be lawyers to be actually handle the case. And so he called my law partner at the time, Dale Minami. Um, and Dale Minami were practic and I were practicing together in Oakland, California. Um so he called Dale, and um Dale uh called me down the hallway to come on into his office and said he just got this phone call about um ways that we might be able to attack these cases that actually, of course, all of us were familiar with from law school. We had read Koramatsu in law school. And so the prospect as Japanese Americans of reopening a case that had justified the incarceration of our entire community was amazing. We were, I think, I can say this for myself, quite skeptical at first, you know, where it's really kind of like you really have this evidence. Um and and then we all got together. So we had we put together our legal team in San Francisco from from our friends. Um Catherine Bonai was my is my sister who started to be lead counsel for Gordon in Seattle. She contacted people she knew, and then Peggy just talked about how she put her legal team together. So we had three legal teams there who we had a big meeting with Peter. We found out more about the evidence. I also wanted to say when I was talking about the lawyers and the work that they did, um, I wanted to add that in addition to the legal work, um the lawyers were really remarkable because we knew that we had to do more than win in a court of law. We needed to win in the court of public opinion. Um we felt it important to educate the public about the incarceration, the Supreme Court cases and the quorum novice evidence that proved that their justifications were false. And then also how these themes from these cases continue to resonate. And so, in addition to doing our legal work, we went out and we spoke to churches and civic groups and whatever to let people know what had happened. And and and actually what ended up is that these cases um became national news um that we uh were able to, I mean, I I'll share our first press conference. We were really con we made a uh uh we um set up the San Francisco Press Club for the filing of the Koramatsu Commission petition, and we were thinking like, is anybody gonna show up? You know, we've got this press room, and is anyone gonna show up? And we walked in and it's just like filled with reporters with all those microphones that are taped together, like right in front of you, and um, and it was just extraordinary. So being covered by all three of the major networks, being covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, um, all the all the major papers um was um absolutely amazing. And it was exactly what we wanted was to get this information out in the public so that the public saw what the country had done during World War II and maybe would pay attention to making sure something like this didn't happen again. So I really just wanted to say how public education was a very important part and continues to this day to be a very important part of our work.

SPEAKER_00 16:03

You've told us what quorum nobus is, you've said that it's very uncommon. So, what are the necessary conditions under which you can file a quorum nobis case? Is it that there had to be mishandling, there had to be bad faith? Like what made these the perfect cases?

SPEAKER_02 16:18

So, quorum nobus, um first of all, is you is only brought when you can prove a manifest injustice that that resulted in um hardship. So keep this in mind is that when we have courts decide something, we want finality of judgments. We want the decisions of courts to be final, right? There's like no appeal after the Supreme Court of the United States that there's there's an interest in cases being done. And so in order to reopen a case 40 years later, you have to overcome that presumption of finality. So it's got to be a big deal, right, to be to be able to reopen a case and particularly to reopen a Supreme Court case. And so the requirements for Corum Nobis are rather rigorous, and it requires the showing of manifest injustice to have happened. In addition, it's required that there be um it be, you didn't wait too long to file it. And so it can't be that you found out that there was something wrong in 1944 and then waited until 1983 to complain about it. And so we had to show that this was newly discovered evidence. And in addition, there had to be something called collateral consequences, that the client, the petitioner, had to have some continuing disability because of the conviction. In other words, if you're doing fine, the conviction doesn't harm you, the courts don't want to spend time on it. So it had to also show this thing about collateral consequences. So there are legal requirements to be established for bringing a quorum nobus case.

SPEAKER_00 18:04

So when a quorum nobis case is brought, is it retrying the entire case, or do you only have to look into this damage that was done that was previously mishandled? Yeah, what is it that is your burden upon bringing a quorum nobis case?

SPEAKER_02 18:19

So we brought the quorum nobus cases on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, prosecutorial fraud, and this evidence that I just discussed with you about. And so you have to prove that you had to produce your evidence, you have to prove that this wrong happened in order to be able to get um uh quorum nobus relief.

SPEAKER_00 18:39

And is that going to retry the entire set of facts, or is that just going to say, hey, because they did wrong and we proved it, uh, there's a potential of reopening this case. Yeah, what's the yeah, what does Chrom Nobis actually do if you win?

SPEAKER_02 18:53

So that's a really, really good question because all three cases went different ways. And and in one of the cases in Hirabayashi, actually the government wanted to retry the validity of the incarceration.

SPEAKER_00 19:07

Wow.

SPEAKER_02 19:09

So let me get there. So so all three, the Koromatsu case was the Koronobus case was the first one to proceed. Um, all three legal teams, the first thing we did was all three legal teams joined together to file a motion to consolidate all three cases before one judge, basically on the on the argument that the issues were all the same, the evidence was all the same, and it would be more efficient and economical for all the cases to be heard together. Unfortunately, that request was denied. So we couldn't consolidate the three cases, and so each of the three cases went their own separate ways. Uh Fred's case again, Fred's case again went first, and Fred's case, the government sought delay after delay after delay. Um, keep in mind that they were really concerned about the government admitting any fraud took place during World War II. In addition, some people who were uh involved in these decisions were still living, so there were reputations to protect. And in addition, the issue of redress was going to be before Congress. And so the government knew that the redress redress would be brewing in Congress and certainly didn't want a court case to say that the government had lied to the Supreme Court. So I don't know that that was why the government was seeking delays. I can guess pretty well that the government just didn't want a ruling in this case, so they delayed and delayed, saying they needed more time, they needed more time. Um, at one point, the government offered Fred, Gordon, and men pardons. Um, Fred and the other men rejected pardons, uh, believing, of course, that pardons are offered when you did something wrong and you're being pardoned for it, and the men didn't think they did anything wrong. Um, Fred said that it was government instead that should be asking him to pardon it.

SPEAKER_01 21:10

Right.

SPEAKER_02 21:10

Um when the government finally filed its response in Fred's case, it moved to vacate Fred's conviction. In other words, it said we agree that Fred's conviction should be erased. And because we're agreeing to vacate his conviction, the court doesn't have to address any of his allegations of government misconduct. You should dismiss his petition and the claims of government misconduct because we're agreeing to vacate his conviction. We, of course, urged Judge Patel to deny the government's motion and to address the evidence of that the mass removal was based on a government fraud. On November 19, 1983, before a courtroom that was packed with Japanese Americans who had been incarcerated. Along with their children. Judge Patel heard arguments from counsel and a statement from Fred. While the judges, while judges normally hear arguments and then say, okay, you know, you'll hear from me later on, and they leave the bench. Judge Patel was prepared to issue her ruling from the bench, which surprised all of us that she was ready to do that. She denied the government's motion. She found that the government repeated failure to substantively respond to the petition was the same as a confession of error. And based on her own independent review of the evidence we presented, she vacated Fred's conviction. In closing her opinion, she reflected on the importance of Fred's case and the importance of vigilance. She said, quote, Koromatsu stands as a constant caution that in times of distress, the shield of national security must not be used to protect government actions from close scrutiny. It stands as a caution that in times of international hostility, our institutions, judicial, legislative, executive, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused. Fred was a soft-spoken man and didn't want to speak in public when the case first began. Actually, what he said is that yes, you can go ahead and pursue my case, but I don't want to talk to reporters, and I don't want any reporters camped out on my front lawn. But during his case, and as his case had continued relevance, particularly during the attacks on others like Muslims and persons of Middle Eastern descent, he started to speak out and he went on to talk all over the country to community groups, civil rights groups, and professional organizations, colleges and universities, and all others all across the country until his last days. And actually, um, 60 Minutes came and interviewed him. And he had reporters. He woke up to reporters camped out on his front line. For his courage in fighting the incarceration during World War II and his later advocacy for the rights of others, President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in January 1998. And in bestowing the award, the president said, quote, in the long history of our country's constant search for justice, some names of ordinary citizens stand out, stand for millions of souls. Plessy Brown Parks. To that distinguished list, today we add the name Fred Kuromatsu.

SPEAKER_00 24:50

Thank you for taking us through what happened with Fred Kuromatsu. Let's move on to the next case. What happened with uh Hirobayashi, Gordon Hirabayashi?

SPEAKER_02 24:59

Okay. Um Gordon, in Gordon Hirobayashi's case, the government again filed the same motion to vacate the conviction and dismiss the petition. That is again agreed to say, we'll we'll agree that we're gonna erase Gordon's conviction, but because we're doing that, we want you to not um pursue the claim of government misconduct. You should dismiss his petition and his allegations of government fraud. Um, however, um it stepped up its defense from Koromatsu. It stepped up its defense and put asserted a more aggressive defense than it did in Koramatsu with additional grounds for dismissal, including arguing that Governor Gordon had suffered no continuing harm. He was a successful professor in Edmonton, Alberta, and so this doesn't hurt him anymore. Um, and in addition, that he waited too long to bring his claim. So the government put up some defenses here. Judge Donald Voorhees ordered a full evidentiary hearing on those allegations, on both the allegations of government fraud and the government's defenses. He wanted a full hearing with witnesses and documents and all of that. The hearing took place in June of 1985, and the government unbelievably responded by seeking to argue again after more than 40 years, after presidential apology and everything, and the commission report, that there was evidence that Japanese Americans had engaged in espionage and sabotage. Specifically, they brought forward this thing called magic cables. There were these magic cables that was intercepted, I think, Japanese transmissions that showed that Japanese Americans were cooperating or something like that. Um, and so they put on witnesses about these secret cables.

SPEAKER_00 26:59

Cables meaning communications between from Japan.

SPEAKER_02 27:02

Right. Um, and also remarkably, World War II Department of Justice lawyer Edward Ennis came to court and testified for Gordon about the prosecutorial fraud, about the suppression of evidence. Judge Voorhees issued his opinion in February 1986, finding that the War Department had withheld DeWitt's final report from the Justice Department, even though Ennis had requested it and didn't get it until much later, that the report had been altered to hide DeWitt's true reasons for the orders, and that the withholding of the report seriously prejudiced Gordon. Judge Voorhees vacated Gordon's removal conviction, but not his curfew conviction, reasoning that the curfew was a lesser intrusion and likely would have been upheld by the court even with the suppression of evidence, because it's just saying stay in your home at night. Both the government and Gordon appealed Judge Voorhees' ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court held in unanimous decision by Judge Mary Schroeder that both Gordon's curfew and removal conviction should be vacated. In response to the government's argument that Gordon didn't suffer any continuing injuries or problems from his wartime conviction, Judge Schroeder stated significantly that, quote, a U.S. citizen who is convicted of a crime on account of race is lastingly aggrieved. For his courage in resisting orders that led to the incarceration during World War II, he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in May 2012 from President Obama. In his remarks, the president said, quote, Gordon Hirobayashi's legacy reminds us that patriotism is rooted not only in not in ethnicity, but in our shared values. And his example will forever call on us to defend liberty of all of our citizens.

SPEAKER_00 29:16

Question that comes up for me, you mentioned that his curfew in the Ninth Court of Appeals was also voided. His violation of the curfew being one of his convictions was voided. Is that now legal precedent that any curfew might be unconstitutional? Is there any implication there?

SPEAKER_02 29:35

So this is the big question. What did the Cornobus cases do to the Supreme Court cases? Right? So the Supreme Court cases still stand. A lower court can't overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. And so we have a very bizarre situation here where the Supreme Court cases still stand, but their factual underpinning has been held to be fraudulent.

SPEAKER_00 29:59

That's crazy.

SPEAKER_02 30:01

So, but the Supreme Court opinions still stand. You know, they haven't been overruled except for what Robert says in the Court of History, which doesn't overrule a case. And so the Supreme Court cases are still there on the books.

SPEAKER_00 30:17

Wow. So off the wall here, but is there any mechanism by which these things can be amended voluntarily by the court, or does it take some kind of damage and some action being brought all the way up to the court for anything to be considered?

SPEAKER_02 30:30

So one answer is the court can do whatever it wants. If it wanted to overrule Koramatsu substantively and Trump versus Hawaii, I think it could have if it wanted to, right? The question there is what portion of the case is being overruled? Are they saying you can't incarcerate 120,000 Japanese Americans anymore? Or are they saying the government, we don't have to defer to the government on issues of national security, right? I mean the word overruled has to encapsulate overruling a specific thing. What what principle of law is being overruled? And so um so the cases still stand?

SPEAKER_00 31:10

Yeah, they're still on the books.

SPEAKER_02 31:12

They're still on the books.

SPEAKER_00 31:14

Let's turn it over to Peggy because you were personally involved with the Yasui case. I wonder if you can tell us how that Corum Nobus case went.

SPEAKER_01 31:22

As Lori said, there were three different cases. They went to three different jurisdictions and they and there were three different outcomes. Um, so the the uh government in Yasui also didn't respond to our petition until seven and a half months later, uh, when there's a 30-day response time. And when they did respond, uh, very similar to how they responded um in Koromatsu, which is that um that this was a long time ago, that we would not retry these cases, that um nothing they don't have any lasting egregious impact on these people. Um and therefore it would be a waste of the court's time and energy. We're not going to retry these cases, etc. etc. Um, so we should vacate the conviction, dismiss the indictment, but not have any other hearing or legal findings of fact. Um, and essentially that's that's what they said. We responded by saying we do agree that there was uh we do agree that the the conviction and the indictment should be dismissed and vacated. Uh, but we are interested in finding out why and what happened, and especially trying um the issue of governmental misconduct uh and the lack of military necessity and the fact that there was at least in General DeWitt somebody with racist opinions who made racist decisions, and that uh there was a lack of political leadership at the time. We want these issues to be decided. We want to put on the evidence to show this because it is a fundamental manifest injustice that that was done. Um and then we went to the hearing. Now, our judge, Judge Robert Bologna, we had this hearing in the District Court of Oregon January 16th, 1983, and he he wrote the opinion on January 26th. And he said um that he will vacate the conviction, he will dismiss the indictment. He basically said that the government and Yesui want the same thing only for different reasons. And that's like saying, you know, we want the same thing, only we're 500 miles apart from each other, uh, and what we want and why we want it. Uh, because they want it just dismissed and thrown away. We want an evidential hearing showing that the governmental misconduct was egregious and fundamental to his due process rights. That's like saying, you know, black is blue and blue is black. And so uh, but he did he said that there's no case or controversy. You want the same relief only for different reasons. I'm not going to indulge in uh this findings 40 years later when it has no legal consequence. Um, and that the petitioner would have the court engage uh in fact finding which would have no merit and no consequences, and that the court should not engage in this activity.

SPEAKER_00 34:48

So total look of the draw of which judge you got, these other two cases, the judges were amenable, they took the petition, they considered it, but in your case, they wanted to just push it away.

SPEAKER_01 34:59

Yes. And you know, if you look at the judges themselves, their experiences, what they did, who they were, that does, you know, has to come into play on how they view things. Um, so it was really bittersweet. I mean, Yasui's conviction was vacated, but the evidence, he's a lawyer, the evidentiary hearing, the the evidence, uh, misconduct, uh, all those things that lawyers love to see if if they're legitimate, he did not get that hearing. And so um we appealed, we appealed to the Ninth Circuit saying that we wanted an evidentiary hearing. Um, and unfortunately, during the process of the appeal, he passed away on November 12th, 1986. So the government immediately uh moved to dismiss the case as moot. The Ninth Circuit agreed to it, um, and we filed a writ assertiari to the U.S. Supreme Court saying that this is not just Yosui's case, it's a case of 120,000 other people. We we um switched to his wife as the the pertinent um petitioner, uh, but the court still found in 19 March um October 5th, 1987, that the case was moot and then it was gone. Wow. So such a disappointment given that you know he knew the law and he knew that he was right, but he didn't live to see that happen. And he was very involved in Japanese American redress uh going through Congress, and he actually did not live to see the Civil Liberties Act signed by President Reagan. And in 2014 and 15, um, I spearheaded along with Holly Yasui's daughter and many other people, uh, a presidential medal of freedom for Minor Yasui, which he received posthumously from Barack Obama uh November 24th, 2015. So I want to read what Barack Obama said. He said, from the fruit farms of Oregon to the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, Minor Yasui devoted his life to fighting for basic human rights and the fair and equal treatment of every American. In challenging the military curfew placed on Japanese Americans during World War II, he brought critical attention to the issue and paved the way for all Americans to stand as full and equal citizens. Minoru Yasui's example endures as a reminder of the power of one voice echoing for justice.

SPEAKER_00 38:08

Wow, beautiful.

SPEAKER_01 38:10

And that's really who he was. And um, if you don't mind, I'd also like to read something that he wrote about why he did this case.

SPEAKER_00 38:21

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 38:21

What he said was, and I'll read this this is the United States of America, founded in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all men, and I would say now women, are created equal. As an American citizen, as a lawyer, I felt that we owed at least the obligation as a citizen to tell our government they are wrong. That is a sacred duty of every citizen, because what is done to the least of us can be done to all of us. I knew we had to protest. So he felt very strongly from the age of 25 to the day he passed in um in 1986 that this was the right thing to do.

SPEAKER_00 39:12

It's crazy how there were these three cases that had the same evidence, the same evidence was used wrongfully within their trials, and yet the disposition of a judge 40 years later determined how much how much vindication each could receive.

SPEAKER_01 39:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 39:28

I guess that's how the justice system works sometimes. But the last thing we wanted to talk about today is the fourth Supreme Court case, which was a victory at the time, but maybe did not receive the kind of recognition that it ought to have for the individuals involved, particularly Mitsui Endo. So I wonder, yeah, Peggy, can you tell us about what happened with her case after the fact?

SPEAKER_01 39:50

Well well, she won. And so, unlike the Corum Nobus petitioner, she won. I mean, the reason why we could open, reopen these cases is because they lost. Uh, and and I think that Mitsui Endotsumi is her married last name, uh, lived in Chicago, lived a pretty quiet life. Um, and I think even maybe her children did not realize what a brave, courageous act she did in her early 20s. Um, and I know all of us had thought about her uh in 2015 or 14 when we were looking to um do the uh Presidential Medal of Freedom nomination for um for Yesui, we wanted to know about Endo. And um at that time, uh one of her children said they weren't sure. And so we went ahead with Yasui and not Endo. Um, but later on, I think a couple things happened. One, there's a Washington Post article by Cliff Sloan in uh 2023 that said Biden should honor the woman who stood up to Japanese American incarceration. And after that, uh we as the Quorum Nobus lawyers got together and said, you know, there are four cases, she has not received presidential recognition for her courage and her bravery. So why not we um bring this nomination for a presidential medal of freedom? So we did in addition to her two children, Wendy Weimer and Wayne Susumi. Um, and we so that's what we did. We brought um Lori was involved in that, uh involved in it, as well as Leanne Miyamoto and um other people. And it there was broad-based support for it from members of the House of Representatives to uh congressional Japanese American Citizens League and other AANHPAI organizations. And we also ran a um change.org petition that you can now do in these days because uh because of technology, and there were 3,500 people that signed on to the petition. And so on January 2nd of this year, 2025, um, President Biden awarded her a presidential citizens medal. Um, and uh what he said was, and I'll read this, in a shameful chapter in our national history, Mitsui Endo was incarcerated alongside more than 120,000 Japanese Americans. Undaunted, she challenged the injustice and reached the Supreme Court. Her resolve allowed thousands of Japanese Americans to return home and rebuild their lives, reminding us that we are a nation that stands for freedom for all. That came from the White House. I think there's a very poignant uh poignant remarks from Congresswoman Doris Matsui from California. And uh Congresswoman Matsui said, Mitsui Endo Titsumi lived an exceptional life. Her commitment to seek justice validated the most American of ideas that any of us, ordinary Americans, hold enormous power to have an extraordinary impact through our actions and our willingness to stand up for what is right. And so we are um, you know, the the award was posthumously given to uh Mitsui Endo Tsumi. Uh we're very happy that she received presidential recognition. Um and especially as the only woman who brought a case that was significant for me. And I assume Lori and Catherine and Leanne and all the other women who worked on the Quorum Nobis cases.

SPEAKER_00 44:23

As our final question, based on this history that you guys made happen, what is your message to other people that might take up this kind of work, that might see injustices from the past? What is your hope that people will take away upon learning about these cases that you guys were helming?

SPEAKER_01 44:41

I would say, you know, when we when especially the Korum Nobus cases, I was 30 years old, had no idea, read Koramatsu in law school, hated law school, thought if there was something I could do about Koromatsu would make the three years of torture worthwhile. But what could you do? It already gone to the US Supreme Court. So five years later, when this, when, when this was this happened, it was like, it was really like a miracle. Like we can do something about a case that is for our generation and in our lifetime and in our community to make right. And I think it takes focus and flexibility. I didn't think it would ever happen, but if you're if you're walking the road of justice, you will see things turn up. And I think the biggest thing is to have focus and flexibility, but also to have hope and a belief that justice will be done. That's that's my message.

SPEAKER_00 45:48

Thank you so much, Peggy. Laurie, any last thoughts from you?

SPEAKER_02 45:52

So just to um build on what Peggy said, I was two years out of law school when I got involved in this case. And it sounds kind of strange and unbelievable, but I I think um it really comes down to saying yes, right, when opportunities arise. Um people so people sometimes students come up and they say, Boy, I wish I could work on a case like Koramatsu. And of course, the reality is they happen all the time. It's really just a matter of whether you're going to just say yes and and get involved in it. And um, and that those opportunities are out there and and um people are needed to get involved in these kinds of issues.

SPEAKER_01 46:38

Also, Spencer, what I would say is little did I realize that I would be talking about these cases 40 some years later. Little did I realize that I would have some connection to the Yasui case through those four decades. And um, and that it has in some ways really shaped part of who I am and my career and what I've done and where I've gone and what I speak about. So it's it's been a grand adventure and and a wonderful, just a wonderful, you know, service to the community, but more a wonderful career uh on my part. I've been very blessed to be a part of all this.

SPEAKER_00 47:29

I know that we, I'm speaking for all of our listeners, are incredibly blessed to have heard from these two legal scholars and practitioners who have done such amazing work. Thank you so much for sharing your time and your expertise. Thank you for coming on.

SPEAKER_02 47:42

Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 47:47

Season one of History for the Reckoning is made possible by support from the JACL Mount Olympus chapter, as well as generous financial support from the Takahashi Family Foundation and the JA Community Foundation. The music was produced by Patrick Coffin. If you want to support the show, follow us on Instagram at History for the Reckoning. Sign up for our newsletter at History for the Reckoning on Substack, where you'll also find the show notes for each episode, or support us financially through Patreon at patreon.com slash History for the Reckoning.