Case Name: John T. REGAN, Appellant, v. Cameron KING, Registrar of Voters in City and County of San Francisco, State of California
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1943-02-20
Citations: 134 F.2d 413
Docket Number: No. 10299
Parties: John T. REGAN, Appellant, v. Cameron KING, Registrar of Voters in City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 134
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
John T. REGAN, Appellant, v. Cameron KING, Registrar of Voters in City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
No. 10299.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1943.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 17, 1943.
See 63 S.Ct. 1168, 87 L.Ed. _.
U. S. Webb and Webb, Webb & Olds, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John J. O’Toole, City Atty., and Walter A. Dold, Chief Deputy City Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Wayne M. Collins, of San Francisco, Cal. (A. L. Wirin, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., et al., amici curiae.
Harold M. Sawyer and Charles R. Garry, both of San Francisco Cal., and Clore Warne, Charles Katz, Carey McWilliams, Loren Miller, Laurence Weinberg, and A. L. Wirin, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for San Francisco and Los Angeles Chapters of National Lawyers Guild, amici curiae.
Walter T. Tsukamoto, of Sacramento, Cal., Saburo Kido, of San Francisco, Cal., and Hugh E. Macbeth, Thos. L. Griffith, Jr., and A. D. Wirin, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for Japanese American Citizens League, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, § 1, making all persons born in the United States citizens thereof, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890, and a long line of decisions, including the recent decision in Perkins, Secretary of Labor et al. v. Elg., 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320, the judgment of dismissal, 49 F.Supp. 222, is affirmed.