Japanese Internment Camps: Constitutional Ruling Explained

In December 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was constitutional. This decision, known as Korematsu v. United States, was based on the premise that the need to protect against espionage and the national emergency of the war outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, refused to comply with the relocation orders and challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any Americans could be excluded. While the Korematsu decision has been criticized and rebuked, it was only formally overturned in 2018.

Explore related products

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

$6.39 $10.99

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

$22.91

Only What We Could Carry: The Japanese American Internment Experience

$15.19 $28

Impounded: Dorothea Lange and the Censored Images of Japanese American Internment

$18.05 $19.95

Looking Like the Enemy: My Story of Imprisonment in Japanese American Internment Camps

$9.52 $17

They Called Us Enemy

$14.15 $19.99

The Supreme Court ruled that the US government had the power to arrest and intern Japanese-Americans

In December 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States that the federal government had the power to arrest and intern Japanese-Americans during World War II. This decision has since been rebuked and criticized as "gravely wrong" and a "clear violation of Constitutional rights", but it was only formally overturned in 2018.

The case originated after Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, refused to comply with Executive Order 9066 issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. The order authorized the U.S. War Department to create military areas from which any Americans could be excluded, and the Western Defense Command subsequently ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" to relocate to internment camps. Korematsu challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment, arguing that his rights as an American citizen were being infringed.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the internment camps and Korematsu's arrest and internment. The majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black and joined by five other justices, held that the need to protect against espionage and invasion by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry during wartime. Black argued that laws curtailing the rights of a particular racial group could be upheld if strictly required by "pressing public necessity" and that the military's conclusion about the national emergency of World War II should not be second-guessed.

However, the decision has been widely criticized over the years. Three justices dissented at the time, including Justice Roberts, who called the internment order "a clear violation of Constitutional rights", and Justice Murphy, who called it "the legalization of racism". In later years, Justice Antonin Scalia also expressed his disagreement with the decision, and in 2018, two Supreme Court justices criticized it and agreed that it no longer had the force of precedent.

The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II has since been recognized as a "grave injustice" and a violation of basic civil liberties and constitutional rights. Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which apologized for the evacuation, relocation, and internment of citizens and permanent resident aliens, and provided restitution payments to survivors.

The ruling was based on the need to protect against espionage and sabotage

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 raised fears about the safety of America's West Coast. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, authorizing the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry to internment camps. This order was challenged by Fred Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man who refused to leave his home in California, arguing that the order violated the Fifth Amendment.

In the landmark case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the internment of Japanese Americans was constitutional. The majority opinion, led by Justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage and sabotage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry during a time of war. Justice Black wrote that the military authorities' conclusion that the order was necessary due to the national emergency of World War II should not be second-guessed. He also stated that laws curtailing the rights of a particular racial group could be upheld if strictly required by "pressing public necessity."

The ruling in Korematsu v. United States has been widely criticized and rebuked for upholding racism and violating the civil rights of Japanese Americans. Justice Roberts called the internment order "a clear violation of Constitutional rights," while Justice Murphy and Justice Jackson condemned it as "the legalization of racism" that fell into "the ugly abyss of racism." Despite the criticism, the decision was not formally overturned until 2018, when two Supreme Court justices criticized it and agreed that it no longer had any legal precedent.

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 acknowledged the "grave injustice" of the internment, offering restitution payments to survivors and an apology on behalf of the United States government. The internment of Japanese Americans remains a dark chapter in American history, recognized as a violation of basic civil liberties and constitutional rights. The case of Korematsu v. United States serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the constitutional rights of all citizens, even during times of national emergency.

The decision has been rebuked and formally overturned

The Korematsu v. United States decision, which upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps during World War II, has faced significant criticism and has been formally overturned. This ruling, handed down by the Supreme Court in December 1944, has been widely rebuked for its endorsement of racial discrimination and violation of civil liberties.

In the case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to arrest and intern Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, under the provisions of Executive Order 9066. Issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in February 1942, this order authorized the forced relocation of individuals of Japanese ancestry to internment camps, citing national security concerns following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Korematsu challenged the constitutionality of the order, arguing that it violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. Despite his efforts, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction, prioritizing national security concerns over individual civil rights.

However, the decision has been widely condemned and formally overturned. Justice Robert Jackson's dissenting opinion in the original case warned that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences, stating that it had no place in law under the Constitution. In 1984, federal District Judge Marilyn Patel voided Korematsu's conviction, acknowledging the injustice of the original decision. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 further repudiated the decision, with Congress apologizing for the internment and providing restitution payments to survivors.

Additionally, in June 2018, two Supreme Court justices explicitly criticized the Korematsu decision, stating that it no longer holds any precedential value. This marked the first time that the Supreme Court formally distanced itself from the controversial ruling. The Court's acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of the decision is significant, sending a clear message that racial discrimination and the violation of civil liberties have no place in the legal system.

The Korematsu decision stands as a stark reminder of the importance of upholding constitutional rights and safeguarding against the excesses of governmental power, particularly during times of national crisis. By overturning this decision, the Supreme Court has taken a step towards rectifying the injustices endured by Japanese Americans during World War II and reinforcing the principles of equality and freedom upon which the nation was founded.

Explore related products

Japanese American Internment: Prisoners in Their Own Land (Tangled History)

$10.99

Prisoners Without Trial: Japanese Americans in World War II (Hill and Wang Critical Issues)

$10.19 $16

American Internment: World War II Japanese American Internment Camps

$8.97

When Can We Go Back to America?: Voices of Japanese American Incarceration during WWII

$13.62 $22.99

Enemy Child: The Story of Norman Mineta, a Boy Imprisoned in a Japanese American Internment Camp During World War II

$15.33

The Japanese Internment Camps: A History Perspectives Book (Perspectives Library)

$11.35 $14.21

The ruling was influenced by the attack on Pearl Harbor

The ruling to uphold the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps was influenced by the attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought the US into World War II. The bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces on December 7, 1941, sparked fears about national security, particularly on the West Coast, where a significant number of Japanese Americans resided.

In response to the attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. This order authorized the Secretary of War and military commanders to evacuate all persons deemed a threat from the West Coast to internment camps, referred to as "relocation centers." The Western Defense Command subsequently ordered all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens, to relocate to these camps, citing the need to protect against espionage by Japan.

The Supreme Court's Korematsu v. United States decision in December 1944 upheld the constitutionality of these internment camps. The Court ruled that the federal government had the power to arrest and intern Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American man who refused to comply with the relocation orders. Justice Black, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry during a time of war.

The ruling in Korematsu v. United States has been widely criticized and rebuked, with Justice Roberts calling it ""gravely wrong" and a "clear violation of Constitutional rights." The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 acknowledged the internment as a "grave injustice" and provided restitution payments to survivors. While the decision has been criticized and disavowed, it was only officially overturned in 2018.

Justice Black's opinion stated that laws curtailing the rights of a racial group could be upheld in a national emergency

In the case of Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the federal government had the authority to arrest and intern Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066. This order, issued on February 19, 1942, authorised the U.S. War Department to establish military zones from which any American could be excluded. This led to the Western Defense Command ordering "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" to relocate to internment camps.

Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion, acknowledged that laws curtailing the rights of a specific racial group were "immediately suspect" and subject to rigid scrutiny. However, he argued that these laws could be justified if they were deemed essential by a "pressing public necessity." In the context of World War II, Justice Black deferred to the executive branch and the military authorities, who had concluded that the internment of Japanese Americans was a necessary security measure during a national emergency. He stated that the need to protect against espionage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

Justice Black's opinion reflected the prevailing sentiment that the nation's security concerns during wartime took precedence over the civil rights of certain racial groups. He believed that the courts should not interfere with the decisions made by military commanders, even if those decisions involved racial discrimination. This stance was not without opposition, as three justices, including Roberts, Murphy, and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the internment order violated the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans and amounted to racism.

The Korematsu decision has since been widely criticised and rebuked. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, acknowledging the "grave injustice" of the internment and providing restitution payments to survivors. The conviction of Fred Korematsu was also overturned, and his stand against the internment order has been recognised and honoured. While the Korematsu decision was never formally overturned, it has been deemed to have no place in law under the Constitution and is not considered a valid precedent for governmental actions.

Frequently asked questions