trial court's finding as justified by the evidence. It further ruled that California was permitted to exclude ineligible aliens from purchasing, transferring, and owning agricultural land and that Fred Oyama was deprived of no constitutional guarantees. Decision After the case was decided in a trial court and was appealed to and upheld by the California Supreme Court, it went to the US Supreme Court via a writ of certiorari. Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State under US President Harry Truman, presented the case for petitioners. The petitioners of the case listed three grievances of the Alien Land Law, as it was applied in this case: Firstly, it deprived Fred Oyama of the equal protection of the laws and of his privileges as an American citizen. Secondly, that it denied Kajiro Oyama equal protection of the laws. Thirdly, it contravened the due process clause by sanctioning a taking of property after expiration of the appropriate limitations period. The Court agreed 8–1 with the petitioners first contention: the Alien Land Law, as applied in this case, indeed deprived Fred Oyama of the equal protection of California's laws and of his privileges as an American citizen. Because that decision alone was grounds for reversal of the California Supreme Court decision, the US Supreme Court saw no need to address the second and the third contentions. Vinson's majority opinion Oyama is notable for the significant differences in rendered concurrent opinions. Chief Justice Vinson, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote strictly on the facts of the case, without giving much note to its broader implications. While freely admitting that it is apparent that the enforcement of the Alien Land Laws in that case resulted in abridgement of equal protection afforded to Fred Oyama by his status as an American citizen, the Supreme Court's opinion rendered by Vinson did not go so far as to rule on or, in fact, even address the constitutionality of the statute. Firstly, Chief Justice Vinson was fairly conservative in issues of race. As the famous story goes, Associate Justice Frankfurter remarked that Chief Justice Vinson's death in 1953 (that is, in the middle of the Brown v. Board of Education case) was perhaps the only evidence of the existence of God he has ever witnessed. While there are of course no certainties in law, the general consensus remains that if Vinson had not been replaced by Chief Justice Earl