Jonah Patel
The controversial 1944 Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States upheld the constitutionality of internment camps during World War II. The case involved Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man who refused to obey Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, which required him to relocate. He was arrested and convicted, and the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that the federal government had the power to arrest and intern him under Executive Order 9066, which was issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to fears generated by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been widely criticized and described as gravely wrong and an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Korematsu v. United States |
| Year | 1944 |
| Decision | The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Fred Korematsu for violating an exclusion order requiring him to submit to forced relocation during World War II |
| Decision Date | December 18, 1944 |
| Decision Vote | 6-3 |
| Case Reference | 323 U.S. 214 |
| Overturned | Yes, in 2018 |
| Overturning Case | Trump v. Hawaii |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Korematsu v. United States
The Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States, decided in 1944, is a notorious and often-cited example of the Court's endorsement of governmental actions during a time of war and national emergency. The case upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, which authorized the relocation and internment of individuals of Japanese ancestry, both citizens and non-citizens, living on the West Coast of the United States.
The plaintiff in the case, Fred Korematsu, was a US citizen of Japanese descent who refused to comply with the evacuation order and was convicted of violating the order. He challenged the conviction, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights, including due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Hugo Black, upheld Korematsu's conviction and the constitutionality of the relocation program. Black's majority opinion accepted the government's argument that the need to protect against espionage and sabotage outweighed the civil rights of the affected individuals. The Court found that the relocation was "a legitimate use of the war power of the government" and that racial differences between Japanese and Caucasians made it impossible to tell one from the other, thus justifying the inclusion of citizens of Japanese descent in the evacuation.
Justice Frank Murphy, in his dissenting opinion, strongly criticized the majority's decision, calling it "legalization of racism" and stating that it "goes over, 'like a giant stride', the bounds of due process." He argued that the Court was sanctioning the conviction of a citizen "as punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry."
The Korematsu decision has been widely criticized in later years, and in 1983, a federal court overturned Korematsu's conviction, citing governmental misconduct in suppressing evidence during the original trial that undermined the necessity for the internment program. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which apologized for the internment and provided reparations to surviving internees.
Despite this, the Korematsu case remains a significant and controversial chapter in US legal history, often invoked in debates over national security, civil liberties, and racial profiling. It stands as a reminder of the potential for governmental overreach during times of crisis and the importance of judicial scrutiny in protecting the rights of vulnerable minorities.
The Two-House Advantage in the US Constitution
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's decision
Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, refused to obey Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army and went into hiding in Northern California. He argued that Executive Order 9066, which authorised the creation of military areas from which any or all Americans could be excluded, violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was thus unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld Korematsu's conviction and the exclusion order. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, included a paragraph that established the judicial review doctrine of "strict scrutiny" applied to laws targeting certain suspect groups. He noted that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect".
The Korematsu decision has been widely criticised and described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry". It was rebuked but not officially overturned until 2018, when, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruled that the Korematsu decision "has no place in law under the Constitution".
Basement Tax Breaks: What Qualifies as Finished in New Jersey?
You may want to see also
Overruled in 2018
In June 2018, two Supreme Court justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor, criticised the Korematsu v. United States decision and agreed that it no longer has the force of precedent. This criticism was made as part of a ruling on the Trump administration's "travel ban" proclamation in Trump v. Hawaii.
In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the president's proclamation, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion and Justice Sotomayor writing a dissent. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts strongly objected to analogies between the Trump v. Hawaii case and the Korematsu decision. He quoted Justice Jackson's 1944 dissent, stating:
> The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear ‘has no place in law under the Constitution.
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, considered Roberts' comments in the majority decision as proof that the Court had finally overruled Korematsu, stating:
> Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as ‘gravely wrong the day it was decided.' This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue.
Virginia's Objection: No Bill of Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The dissenting opinion
Justice Frank Murphy, along with Justices Robert Jackson and Owen Roberts, dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the internment of Japanese Americans based solely on their race was "objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority". He stated that the forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps solely on racial grounds had "no place in law under the Constitution". This dissent has been widely praised and recognised as a powerful statement against racial discrimination.
In addition, Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. United States has been admired by many, including Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Scalia, who referred to it as a powerful rebuke and the past court opinion he admired most, respectively. Justice Breyer expressed his belief that the case was “wrongly decided”, reflecting a consensus among legal scholars and judges that the decision was a mistake.
While the Supreme Court has not officially overturned the Korematsu decision, it has been effectively repudiated and criticised in subsequent rulings, such as Trump v. Hawaii in 2018, where the Court characterised the Korematsu decision as "gravely wrong" and "overruled in the court of history". The dissenting opinion in Korematsu continues to serve as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding civil liberties and protecting against racial discrimination, even in times of war or national security concerns.
Obama-Haters: Constitutional Hypocrisy Under Trump?
You may want to see also
The legacy of Korematsu
The Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States (1944) is a notorious example of the Court's failure to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. The case upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This decision has left a dark stain on the Court's history and continues to spark debate and discussion over racial justice and civil liberties in times of national crisis.
At its core, the Korematsu decision represented a tragic capitulation to fear and prejudice. The Court's ruling endorsed the idea that national security concerns could justify the incarceration of innocent people based solely on their race. This set a dangerous precedent and sent a message that constitutional rights are conditional and subject to the shifting sands of political expediency.
On the other hand, Korematsu has also been a catalyst for positive change. The decision was eventually overturned in 1983 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which found that the internment was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." This led to an official apology from the US government and reparations for surviving internees.
The case also prompted a reevaluation of the role of the Supreme Court in checking governmental overreach. The Court has since shown a greater willingness to scrutinize governmental actions that infringe on civil liberties, particularly in times of national crisis. Notable examples include the Court's rejection of the Trump administration's travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries and its defense of the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
In conclusion, the legacy of Korematsu is a reminder of the ongoing struggle to balance national security with civil liberties and the need for eternal vigilance in safeguarding the rights of all Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. The case serves as a cautionary tale, urging us to learn from our collective mistakes and ensure that such injustices are never repeated.
The Police and Their Oath to Defend the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Korematsu v. United States (1944).
The case was about Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man who refused to obey Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army and go to an internment camp during World War II.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the federal government had the power to arrest and intern Fred Korematsu under Presidential Executive Order 9066.
While the case has been widely criticized and rebuked, it was only officially overturned in 2018 as part of the Trump v. Hawaii case.
The case has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry" and "a stain on American jurisprudence". It has also been cited as a precedent for the legal internment of certain ethnic groups.
