Duncan v. Kahanamoku

Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. It is often associated with the Japanese exclusion cases (Hirabayashi v. United States, Korematsu v. United States and Ex parte Endo) because it involved wartime curtailment of fundamental civil liberties under the aegis of military authority,[1] though in this case neither the plaintiff nor the nominal defendant were Japanese.

Duncan v. Kahanamoku
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 7, 1945 Decided February 25, 1946
Full case name	Duncan v. Duke Kahanamoku, Sheriff
Citations	327 U.S. 304 (more) 66 S. Ct. 606; 90 L. Ed. 688
Case history
Prior	Ex parte Duncan, 146 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1944); cert. granted, 324 U.S. 833 (1945).
Holding
The trial by military tribunal that convicted Duncan was unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
Majority	Black, joined by Reed, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge
Concurrence	Murphy
Concurrence	Stone
Dissent	Burton, joined by Frankfurter
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

While Duke Kahanamoku was a military police officer during World War II, he arrested Lloyd C. Duncan, a civilian shipfitter on February 24, 1944, following a brawl with two armed Marine sentries at the yard. At the time, Hawaii, not yet a state, was being administered under the Hawaiian Organic Act which effectively instituted martial law on the island, tightened after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Duncan was tried and convicted by a military tribunal for assault on military or naval personnel with intent to resist or hinder them in the discharge of their duty, despite civilian courts at the time having restarted summoning jurors and witnesses and conducting criminal trials on the island; Duncan appealed to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that trial by military tribunal was, in this case, unconstitutional.