Connection lost
Server error
OZAWA v. UNITED STATES Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a Japanese man, despite being highly qualified and assimilated, was racially ineligible for U.S. citizenship. The Court interpreted the naturalization statute’s requirement of being a “free white person” to exclude individuals of the Japanese race based on popular racial classifications.
Legal Significance: This case established that racial eligibility for U.S. naturalization was determined by the “common understanding” of race, equating “white persons” with Caucasians. It affirmed Congress’s power to set racial prerequisites for citizenship and solidified a racially exclusionary interpretation of naturalization law for decades.
OZAWA v. UNITED STATES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Takao Ozawa, a man of the Japanese race born in Japan, petitioned for U.S. citizenship in the Territory of Hawaii. At the time of his application, Ozawa had resided in the United States for twenty years. He was a graduate of an American high school, had attended the University of California for three years, spoke English in his home, and educated his children in American schools. His character and qualifications for citizenship were not in dispute and were conceded by the government. The United States opposed his petition on the sole ground that he was racially ineligible for naturalization. The governing statute, Revised Statutes § 2169, limited naturalization to “free white persons” and persons of African nativity or descent. The District Court denied his petition, finding that being of the Japanese race, he did not qualify as a “free white person.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question of his eligibility to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under the prevailing naturalization statutes, is a person of the Japanese race, who is otherwise qualified, eligible for United States citizenship as a “free white person”?
No. The Court held that a person of the Japanese race is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non p
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under the prevailing naturalization statutes, is a person of the Japanese race, who is otherwise qualified, eligible for United States citizenship as a “free white person”?
Conclusion
Ozawa solidified a racially restrictive interpretation of U.S. naturalization law, establishing a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Rule
The Naturalization Act of 1906 is limited by Revised Statutes § 2169, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, it determined that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Naturalization Act of 1906 did not eliminate the racial prerequisites