The order of the District Court granting the motion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Respondent moved to dismiss because, inter alia, petitioners were outside the territorial confines of the District of Columbia. The petitions were filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia and alleged that petitioners were confined at Ellis Island, New York, and are 'subject to the custody and control' of the Attorney General. The orders are challenged by these petitions for writs of habeas corpus on several grounds, the principal one being that all of them exceed the statutory authority in that they were issued after actual hostilities with Germany ceased. 8947, pursuant to the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, R.S. These removal orders were issued, under Presidential Proclamation 2655 of July 14, 1945, 10 Fed.Reg. Their deportation has been directed under removal orders issued by the Attorney General who has found that each of them is dangerous to the public peace and safety of the United States because he has adhered to a government with which the United States is at war or to the principles thereof. Petitioners are some 120 Germans who are being held at Ellis Island, New York, for deportation to Germany. 243, viz., whether the presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of the person detained is prerequisite to filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The initial question presented in this case is the one we reserved in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mitsuye endo majority opinion