The United States v. Hohri et al., 1986, was a case that revolved around the issue of reparations for Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. The plaintiffs, led by Minoru Hohri, sought compensation from the U.S government for their wrongful imprisonment and property loss under the Fifth Amendment's 'takings' clause which prohibits private property being taken for public use without just compensation. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them in an 8-1 decision stating that their claims should have been filed within six years after their cause of action accrued as per federal law (28 U.S.C §2401(a)). The court held that this limitation period began when they were released from internment camps or when they discovered lost properties rather than decades later when they realized constitutional implications of their treatment. Therefore, it dismissed all claims as untimely except those related to individual detention-related injuries which could proceed in district courts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hohri et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the claims of Japanese-American internees was a misinterpretation of Congress' intent when it passed legislation establishing remedies for wartime internment. The dissenting justices believed that Congress intended to provide an alternative remedy rather than an exclusive one; thus they should have been allowed to pursue their constitutional tort claims in court even if they had already received compensation through administrative procedures. They also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of jurisdictional statutes and felt there was no clear evidence showing Congress wanted these cases removed from federal courts’ jurisdiction. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on technicalities instead of addressing substantive issues related to justice and fairness for those who suffered during WWII due to government actions.