Overwiev:
This case analysis of Korematsu v. United States was conducted by our internship student Emilija Lukić, as a crucial part of her learning experience with the Center for American Law, in collaboration with Law Office Biljić. Under the mentorship of our member Katarina Nikolić, Emilija has developed essential skills in analyzing U.S. legal cases, particularly those concerning Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
Through this analysis, Emilija has demonstrated her ability to:
- Read and interpret a U.S. Supreme Court case with a critical thinking approach.
- Identify the key legal issues in the case, particularly the constitutional conflict between civil liberties and national security.
- Examine the legal reasoning used by the Court, evaluating the arguments presented by both sides.
- Research relevant laws and precedents, understanding their application in the case.
- Formulate her own conclusion and arguments, assessing the implications of the Court’s ruling on Human Rights and Legal Principles.
Miss Lukić through her case analysis has showcased strong understanding of legal concepts, her ability to engage in complex legal issues, and her skill in writing well-reasoned legal arguments. Her work demonstrates a deep understanding of the Korematsu decision and its lasting impact on the United States law.
The Korematsu v. United States
About:
The Korematsu v. United States Supreme Courts case is centered on the government’s decision during World War II to force people of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens, to leave their homes and relocate to internement camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese man with American citizenship, had been arrested for not complying to the military order. He responded with appeal, referring to his right to liberty, which he cannot be deprived from nor can be suspended in this particular case. In order to avoid the execution order, which was issued by Franklin Roosevelt, Korematsu submitted himself to eye surgery, in order to alter his appearance, and present himself as a man of Spanish and Hawaiian descend. Because Korematsu did not obey the order and did not relocate, he was arrested. He then went to trial in a Federal Court in San Francisco, and the judge sentenced him for five years of probation.
Issue:
The primary issue in the Korematsu v. United States case was whether the government’s military decision to force Japanese-American citizens into internment camps during World War II was veraciously essential for safety (under the Executive Order 9066), or if it was based on racism and if it violated constitutional right, specifically their right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment and freedom from racial discrimination.
Rules:
When the case was first tried at the Lower Court, the judges had to look at several laws in order to make their decision. These included:
- The Espionage Act and Sedition Act: This law made it a crime to transmit information intended to hinder the war effort
- Proclamation No.4 and Executive Order 9066: The Executive Order 9066 was the most crucial order in this case. It gave military forces the power to avoid adhering to human rights and allowed advocacy of racist thinking and injustice.
- Civilian Restrictive Order No.1 and Civilian Exclusion Order No.8972: Those were specific orders that put Executive Order 9066 into action, forcing Japanese Americans to leave their homes.
Many people felt these orders and the court’s decision violated the Constitution, especially the right to liberty, due to Korematsu’s was imprisonment.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, they agreed that the interment was a wartime necessity. These were their decisions:
- The opinion of the Court is that, in order to successfully implement national security and defense during the war, it is necessary to bring every and any possible protection, as well to limit constitutional rights. Therefore, the racist matter was justified as part of wartime security measures.
- The common used phrase “Strict scrutiny”: This term was used in order to determine constitutionality of Governments action, which meant that basic rights were suppressed and some dubious classification of people occurred (for instance, on religious and racial grounds).
- Ex parte Milligan (1866) is a legal precedent used in this case, in which The Supreme Court ruled that civilians cannot be tried in military tribunals when the Civil Courts are operating.
Analysis:
Let us now analyze the case in more depth.
The Petitioner’s (Fred Korematsu) arguments concern the violation of Fifth amendment by Execution Order 9066, for shortening his civil rights.
The Responded (United States): counter arguments considered the requirement a ‘’military necessity’’. Furthermore, the assertion was that the plaintiff was aware of Order’s negligence.
Concurring opinion (Justice Frankfurter): The concurrence contended that the exclusion was done in accordance with a comprehensive code with instructions which are precise and explicit. The opinion pointed out that military action was solely of the nature of suppressing war activities and should be viewed as such. Therefore, it should not be denied constitutional lawfulness.
Dissenting opinion (Justice Roberts): The dissent claimed that the exclusion in this case was not intended to keep people safe or had any other security intentions for that matter. The opinion held that the order was based solely on racist bias. Also, the discrepancy of the orders was emphasized, where the petitioner would be arrested for disobeying the one with regard to people not leaving their place of residence, but would, likewise, be convicted for not moving to the Assembly Camp, in accordance with other. This has been described as ‘’a cleverly devised trap’’ (page 232).
Dissenting opinion (Justice Murphy): This claim asserted that this was a blatant injustice towards persons of Japanese ancestry, covered in veil of mitigating the war repercussion.
Although the military discretion and necessity should be respected, it also must be limited, especially when the martial law has not been declared. No person shall be deprived constitutional rights if judicial questions are not raised nor answered. While there are people engaging in unfaithful activities on Pacific Coast whom the military order should regard, not every person shall be seen as such, based on a fact of being a part of minority or racial group.
The separation of loyal and disloyal failed for not approaching this case on an individual basis.
Dissenting opinion (Justice Jackson): This dissent stated that no act passed by Congress defined Korematsu’s conduct as a crime. His disloyalty was not confirmed yet assumed. Consequently, while the expediency of the order may be argued, its constitutionality remains questionable. Claim was that the Court should not upheld the military order that does not abide the Constitution, even when it is a judicious decision of military authority. In accordance with foregoing, courts should be independent bodies who enforce the law and ensure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The opinion taken is that the prisoner should be freed and the Court’s verdict opposed.
Majority opinion (Justice Black): claimed that not all restrictions are unconstitutional and should be subject to a thorough investigation by the Court.
The ruling was 6-3, with Justices Murphy, Jackson, and Roberts dissenting. The dissenters argued that there was no compelling evidence that Japanese-Americans posed a national security threat and that the internment was rooted in racial prejudice, not military necessity.
Conclusion:
In Korematsu v. United States case The Supreme Court stood by the decision of lower instances and upheld the internment of Japanese-American people. The ruling justified the alleged racial discrimination involved in this case, as military necessity during wartime.
Impact on Law:
The ruling in this case allowed racial discrimination under the guise of wartime necessity. The decision stood as the law of the land until later judicial and legislative action.
Although this order cleared petitioners name, the Supreme Court’s decision remained the same, as a discredited precedent, meaning that the decision was partially overruled in 1983.
However, nearly 40 years after termination of the case, it has been re-opened and subjected to additional investigation, having that the large majority of citizens had dissent regarding the Supremes’ Court verdict.
In this case, a ‘’Coram nobis’’ writ that includes the list of errors utile to Court in order to correct its own judgment was used. A petition based on this order was filed, claiming that governments record on this military essentiality was fraudulent. Korematsu’s act was designated as non-criminal and the District Court overturned it.
Overall, the decision in Korematsu v. The United States remains a powerful reminder of the dangers of racial prejudice and the government’s unjust actions during the times of national crisis. Today, Korematsu is a powerful representation of how national security concerns should not be allowed to overrule individual rights and freedom.