The Unconstitutional Internment: Japanese-Americans' Wwii Ordeal

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II sparked constitutional and political debates. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces, a wave of anti-Japanese suspicion and fear led the Roosevelt administration to adopt a drastic policy towards Japanese Americans. This resulted in the incarceration of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens, in concentration camps. The constitutionality of these actions was challenged in court by Japanese Americans, raising questions about the government's use of war powers and the violation of constitutional rights.

Explore related products

Justice at War: The Story of the Japanese American Internment Cases

$41.71 $36.95

Inclusion

$24.99 $28

Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians

$28.79

American WWI & WWII – Internment Camps (American History Series)

$4.95 $12.95

Captured: The Japanese Internment of American Civilians in the Philippines, 1941-1945

$50.95 $28.95

Infamy: The Shocking Story of the Japanese American Internment in World War II

$22.91 $22.35

The Fifth Amendment

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a significant constitutional issue, particularly concerning the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment was at the heart of the legal challenges to the internment, with Japanese Americans arguing that their rights had been violated.

One notable case is that of Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man who refused to obey the relocation order and challenged Executive Order 9066 on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment. Korematsu argued that his right to liberty was being infringed upon by military action without due process of law. He was arrested and convicted, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and Justice Hugo Black wrote the decision, upholding the constitutionality of the internment. Black argued that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

Another case that reached the Supreme Court was that of Gordon Hirabayashi, a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry. The Court unanimously upheld the curfew law for Japanese Americans in Military Area 1, finding that the federal government had appropriately used its war powers under the Constitution. However, the Court did not directly address whether the exclusion and internment order violated Hirabayashi's Fifth Amendment rights.

The internment of Japanese Americans has been widely criticized and acknowledged as a racial injustice. In 1948, the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act provided reimbursement for property losses incurred during the internment. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, apologizing for the internment and providing restitution payments to survivors. The Korematsu decision has also been rebuked and was only overturned in 2018.

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II continues to raise important questions about the balance between national security and the constitutional rights of individuals, specifically those guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. It serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rights and freedoms of all citizens, even in times of crisis and war.

Due process

The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II raised serious issues about constitutional rights, particularly regarding due process.

Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorized the forced removal of all persons deemed a threat to national security from the West Coast to "relocation centers" further inland, resulting in the incarceration of approximately 122,000 Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were American citizens.

The constitutionality of this order was challenged in the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944). Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, refused to obey the order to relocate and was convicted of violating military orders. He argued that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process, as it deprived him of liberty without due process of law.

The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The internment of Japanese Americans raised the question of whether the federal government had deprived them of their Fifth Amendment rights and if the wartime emergency justified the extraordinary limitations placed on their constitutional rights.

Justice Robert Jackson, in a dissenting opinion, argued that Korematsu had been convicted of "an act not commonly thought a crime," simply for being present in the state where he was a citizen. He and another dissenting Justice, Frank Murphy, contended that the nation's wartime security concerns did not justify stripping Korematsu and the other internees of their constitutionally protected civil rights. They characterized the exclusion order as "the legalization of racism," violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court's ruling, written by Justice Hugo Black, upheld the detention as a "military necessity" not based on race. Black wrote that the federal government's orders were justified by national security and military necessity, not racial prejudice. He acknowledged the hardships endured by Japanese Americans but emphasized that "hardships are a part of war." The ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of the law authorizing internment, instead emphasizing the national crisis caused by the war as a justification for the government's actions.

Racism and constitutional rights

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a stark example of how racism can lead to the violation of constitutional rights. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment swept across the United States, with many fearing that Japanese Americans might aid the Japanese military. This resulted in the incarceration of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens, in concentration camps or relocation centers across the country.

The internment of Japanese Americans sparked a constitutional crisis, with many questioning whether the federal government had violated the Fifth Amendment, which states that " [n]o person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Korematsu v. United States upheld the constitutionality of the removals under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, the Court did not directly address the issue of racial discrimination, instead emphasizing national security concerns during wartime.

Justice Frank Murphy, in a concurring opinion in the case of Hirabayashi, expressed his concern that the Court had "sustained a substantial restriction of the personal liberty of citizens of the United States based on the accident of race or ancestry." He believed that the internment of Japanese Americans was "another example of the unconstitutional resort to racism inherent in the entire evacuation program." Murphy's opinion highlighted the tension between national security concerns and the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly in times of war.

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a dark chapter in American history, where racial prejudice and national security concerns collided with constitutional rights. The incarceration of thousands of innocent people based on their race and ancestry was a blatant violation of their constitutional rights, and it serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rights of all citizens, even in times of crisis.

While the US government has since acknowledged the injustice of the internment and provided partial restitution to those affected, the legacy of racism and the violation of constitutional rights during that period continue to have an impact on the Japanese-American community and the nation as a whole. The internment of Japanese Americans stands as a cautionary tale of the dangers of racism and the importance of safeguarding the constitutional rights of all individuals, regardless of their race or ancestry.

Explore related products

Farewell to Manzanar: A Powerful Memoir of Growing Up in a Japanese Incarceration Camp

$6.39 $10.99

A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America

$21.51 $28.99

Prejudice, War and the Constitution: Causes and Consequences of the Evacuation of the Japanese Americans in World War II

$33.95

Race, Rights, and National Security: Law and the Japanese American Incarceration (Aspen Coursebook)

$79 $167

Rightlessness: Testimony and Redress in U.S. Prison Camps since World War II (Studies in United States Culture)

$15.45 $34.95

A Principled Stand: The Story of Hirabayashi v. United States (Scott and Laurie Oki Series in Asian American Studies)

$22.27 $34.95

Wartime powers and civil liberties

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II sparked a constitutional crisis in the United States. This crisis centred on the question of whether the federal government's use of war powers and the suspension of civil liberties were justified during a time of national emergency.

The Suspension of Civil Liberties

The internment of Japanese Americans involved the suspension of several civil liberties, including the right to liberty and property. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The internment of Japanese Americans resulted in the forced removal of approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were US citizens, from their homes and the incarceration of many in isolated, guarded "relocation centres" or internment camps. The speed of the "evacuation" forced many to sell their property quickly, resulting in significant financial losses.

Wartime Powers

The suspension of civil liberties was justified by the federal government as a necessary measure to ensure national security and public safety during a time of war. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment swept across the United States, particularly on the West Coast, where most Japanese Americans lived. There were fears that Japanese Americans might assist the Japanese military in launching attacks in the region. These fears were fuelled by influential journalists such as Walter Lippmann and Westbrook Pegler, who argued for the removal or armed guard of Japanese Americans, regardless of habeas corpus.

Legal Challenges

The internment of Japanese Americans was legally challenged by several individuals, including Gordon Hirabayashi, Fred Korematsu, and Mitsuye Endo, who argued that the forced relocation and curfew orders violated their constitutional rights. Hirabayashi was arrested and convicted for violating curfew orders and refusing to register for transportation to an internment camp. He believed that the President's executive orders and supporting federal laws were racially discriminatory and violated the US Constitution. While the Supreme Court upheld the curfew law, it did not directly address the issue of whether the exclusion and internment orders violated Hirabayashi's Fifth Amendment rights. In the Korematsu v. United States case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removals under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, again sidestepping the central question of the constitutionality of the federal law authorising internment.

Resolution and Legacy

The constitutionality of the internment of Japanese Americans remained a contentious issue long after World War II. In 1988, Public Law 100-383 acknowledged the injustice of the incarceration, apologised for it, and provided partial restitution to those who were incarcerated. The internment camps and the civil liberties violations experienced by Japanese Americans during World War II continue to be a sensitive chapter in American history, rarely discussed but serving as a reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional rights, even in times of national emergency.

National security and military necessity

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a highly controversial episode that raised serious questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties. In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment swept across the United States, particularly on the West Coast, where fears arose that Japanese Americans might aid the Japanese military in future attacks. This atmosphere of suspicion and fear led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which authorized military commanders to exclude any civilians deemed a threat from military areas. This order resulted in the forced relocation and incarceration of approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens, in relocation centers or internment camps, mostly in the western interior of the country.

The government justified these actions on the grounds of national security and military necessity, arguing that the presence of Japanese Americans on the West Coast posed a potential threat to the region and the country as a whole. The public's anti-Japanese hysteria was fuelled by Japanese victories in Guam, Malaya, and the Philippines, as well as by a January 1942 report claiming that Japanese Americans had provided vital information to the Japanese government. Military leaders asserted that removing Japanese Americans from the Pacific Coast was essential for public safety and bowed to public and military pressure.

The constitutionality of the internment was challenged by Japanese Americans, civil rights attorneys, and even some government officials, who argued that it violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process and deprived Japanese Americans of their liberty and property without just cause. The Supreme Court heard several cases related to the internment, including Hirabayashi, Korematsu, and Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, but largely sidestepped the constitutional question, emphasizing the national crisis caused by the war as a justification for the government's actions. Justice Black, for example, wrote that "hardships are a part of war," and while acknowledging the hardships endured by interned Japanese Americans, he maintained that the federal government's actions were not directed against them because of their race or ancestry but for reasons of national security and military necessity.

The internment of Japanese Americans remains a dark chapter in American history, and it was not until the 1980s that serious efforts were made to provide restitution and acknowledge the injustice perpetrated against these individuals. The Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act of 1948 and its subsequent amendments provided token payments for property losses, but it was not until 1988 that Public Law 100-383 offered a formal apology and partial restitution in the form of $20,000 cash payments to each person who was incarcerated.

Frequently asked questions