Hohri v. United States, 847 F.2d 779 (May 11, 1988)

Just as "history is written by the victors," even victors tend to retroactively focus on the paths that led to success, and forget the many creative ideas and less rewarding efforts to obtain redress to an injustice. But brainstorming at the beginning of a campaign, and broad strategizing and course corrections along the way, are like battles in a longer war. 

As Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui pursued their individual corim nobis claims in the N.D. California federal court, the National Council for Japanese Americans Redress (NCJAR) pursued a class action suit for redress in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The fate of that set of claims is a reminder of the importance of Civil Procedure (jurisidiction, statutes of limitations, and more), as the synposis of the opinion demonstrates: 

"Nineteen individuals who were interned during World War II or descended from internees and organization of Japanese Americans brought action against the United States to recover damages arising out of the wartime internment of American citizens and residents of Japanese ancestry. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, on ground of statutes of limitation, and on ground of sovereign immunity. The District Court, Oberdorfer, J., held that: (1) government was not equitably estopped from raising sovereign immunity defense to Tucker Act claim; (2) insofar as damages claims were based on Fifth Amendment “takings” clause, they were in essence inverse condemnation claims over which the district court had jurisdiction; (3) asserted vested constitutional rights lost as result of the internment did not fall within category of “property”; (4) allegations that there was no military necessity for the internment and that those in charge were aware of that fact were sufficient to state claim for unconstitutional taking; (5) doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll limitations period applicable to the claims; (6) Tucker Act contract claims were barred by six-year statute of limitations; (7) no fiduciary relationship existed between the United States and internees with respect to their property; and (8) Federal Tort Claims Act claims were barred by statute of limitations.

After a trip up to the Supreme Court on jurisdictional issues, the decision against the plaintiffs was resolved on appeal to the Federal Circuit in a 2-to-1 decision. Consider the opinion by Senior Judge Baldwin, which provides a (dissenting) take on the relevance of the revealed fraud that underlay the corim nobis cases.

This opinion and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari bookended by a few months on either side the signing of the federal legislation for reparations, providing some closure from a legislative remedy.