## Facts

- Mitsuye Endo, a U.S.-born citizen of Japanese ancestry, was removed from Sacramento, California under wartime orders issued pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
- She was confined in War Relocation Authority (WRA) camps, first at Tule Lake (California) and later at Topaz (Utah).
- Endo filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Northern District of California seeking release from confinement.
- The district court denied relief; Endo appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the government transferred Endo out of the district.
- Before the Supreme Court, the government conceded Endo was loyal and law-abiding but defended the legality of the detention program and its “leave procedure” for release.

## Issues

1. Whether the WRA had express or implied statutory authority under Executive Order 9066, related executive orders, and the Act of March 21, 1942 to detain a concededly loyal, law-abiding U.S. citizen and condition release on administrative “leave” requirements.
2. Whether Endo’s transfer outside the original district during appellate proceedings defeated habeas jurisdiction or rendered the case moot.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously ordered Endo’s unconditional release.
- The Court held the WRA lacked express or implied authority to subject a concededly loyal and law-abiding citizen to detention in a relocation center or to a conditional leave procedure.
- The Court held the habeas case was not mooted by Endo’s transfer because the district court had properly acquired jurisdiction and an appropriate respondent responsible for the detention remained within the district.

## Legal Principles

- Executive and administrative detention of a citizen requires lawful authorization; authority to detain a concededly loyal citizen will not be implied from general wartime powers aimed at preventing espionage and sabotage.
- The Act of March 21, 1942 and Executive Orders implementing the evacuation program were construed as directed to protecting the war effort against espionage and sabotage, not to continuing custody of loyal citizens or conditioning their release.
- Community hostility is not a statutory basis to keep loyal evacuees of Japanese ancestry in custody.
- Once a habeas court properly acquires jurisdiction, transfer of the detainee does not defeat jurisdiction or moot the case when a responsible official remains within the court’s reach.
- Congressional appropriations do not ratify contested executive detention practices absent a specific appropriation item clearly addressing the challenged program component.

## Conclusion

The Court resolved the case on statutory grounds, holding that the WRA had no authority to continue detaining a U.S. citizen whose loyalty the government conceded, and it confirmed that habeas jurisdiction remained available despite the government’s transfer of the detainee during litigation.


Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)