Washington's attorney general maintained that in order for Japanese people to fit in, their "marked physical characteristics" would have to be destroyed, that "the Negro, the Indian and the Chinaman" had already demonstrated assimilation was not possible for them.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, brought by Takuji Yamashita, and affirmed this race-based prohibition, citing its immediately prior issued decision in Takao Ozawa v. United States.

However, anti-Japanese sentiment grew as the working class became incensed about Japanese people taking jobs and being a threat to traditional US society.

[4] This anti-Japanese hate escalated as unarmed Japanese hop pickers were fired on by an angry white mob in Sumner, a town just out of Seattle.

[2] He filed for naturalization papers from the Pierce County Superior Court days prior to receiving his degree since lawyers must be American citizens.

[2][7] He filed a 28 page brief that stated that race based exclusion was an insult to a country that was "founded on the fundamental principles of freedom and equality".

[7] Washington attorney general Wickliffe B. Stratton ridiculed his rhetoric calling it "worn out Star Spangled Banner orations".

[9] After being barred from practicing law, he pivoted to strawberry and oyster farming but was faced with the issue of land ownership as an Asian person.

[9] The president of the Anti-Japanese League reported to the paper that "They (the Japanese) constantly demonstrate their ability to best the white man at his own game in farming, fishing and business.