Case Study: Korematsu Vs. United States

Korematsu V. United States On December 7, 1941 the Japanese Imperial Navy launched an attack on Pearl Harbor, the next day Congress declared war on Japan. Public opinion towards people of any “Asian” ancestry turned to racial hatred. Under political and public pressure Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19th, 1942 (Alonso 30). Enter one of the Dark times in American History, the imprisonment of its own citizens because of racial backgrounds. The act was attacked in the Supreme Court case “Hirabayasi v. United States,” though the Supreme Court upheld the order as “A means of National Security in war time” (Touro Law 2). In May of 1942 Fred Korematsu sued the United States. In a 6-to-3 vote the Supreme Court
denied Fred Korematsu’s Argument and upheld the United States right to intern its citizens (Bai 38). Though the case was lost after it ended, falling behind a wall of repression and shame by both the Americans imprisoned, and the United States Government, the question still comes to mind: What affect did the Supreme Court case “Korematsu v. United States” have on United States and American History?
On February 19, 1942 President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Executive Order 9066 gave the military the right to move people deemed “Hazards to National Security” from areas where said hazards would threaten security, to areas (“camps”) where they could be monitored and kept supervised (Roosevelt). The order also states “The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded there from, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order.” The order gave the Military the authority to designate what area in which the “hazards” would be excluded from and moved to “safe” areas (Roosevelt). The Order never singled out the Japanese, but the rising racial discrimination and the pure hatred of Japanese by the General in charge of the west coast defense, General John DeWitt. This causing trouble as DeWitt was quoted to be “Apt to waver under popular pressure” by Francis Brittle the US attorney general at the time (Alonso 25). DeWitt under Executive Order 9066 was able to do anything he deemed necessary to ensure national security. DeWitt put in place a curfew and under “Public Law 503” passed by Roosevelt, violation of DeWitt’s orders was a federal crime (Alonso 31). In 1943, outraged at this order and with being convicted of violating curfew, Gordon Hirabayasi Sued the United States for Violating his 1st and 5th amendment rights. The case “Hirabayasi v. United States” went before the Supreme Court in 1943, in a Unanimous decision the court found the orders passed by Roosevelt and DeWitt against Japanese Americans Served a Military and National security purpose, and a “protective measure … in a time of war.” (Touro Law 7).
In May of 1942 Fred Korematsu was charged with Violating Public law 503 by remaining in San Leandro, California and area in which those of Japanese ancestry where Prohibited (Touro Law 2). Similar to the crime Hirabayasi was charged with. Korematsu was not given prison time, but a 5 year probation sentence; the Army took him in to custody at the court house, despite the judge releasing him (Alonso 46).
Korematsu believed his case was decided wrongly, so he filed for an appeal. On September 11, 1942 the appeal went before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Korematsu asked the court to reverse the conviction and clear it from his record. The Court of appeals handed the case to the Supreme Court, arguing if it was legal to appeal a probationary sentence. The Supreme Court Handed the case back to the Court of appeals declaring that an appeal could be made from a probationary sentence. The Court of appeals upheld Korematsu’s previous conviction (Alonso 47-48). Korematsu filed another appeal only this time with the Supreme Court.
Because Korematsu believed his civil rights where being violated the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal. On the 11th and 12th of October 1944, the Supreme Court herd the oral argument of both Korematsu and the United States (Alonso70). Korematsu was represented by Wayne Collins from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), Charles Horsky also with the ACLU; And Morris Opler of the JACL (Japanese American Citizens League).he was also represented by Thomas White (ACLU), though he acted “amici curiae,” or acting on behalf of the ACLU in support of the Petitioner, though not on the case (Touro Law 1). Korematsu’s Side of the case involved several major arguments following the cases validity. The Violation of Korematsu’s Civil Rights, the violation of Korematsu’s and Others of Japanese ancestry rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and Whether Public law 503 and the Executive Order 9066 where legal and
Constitutional. On of the first arguments in the defense of Korematsu was that Public law 503 and Executive Order 9066 Violated the 14th amendment. A section of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Korematsu and others of Japanese ancestry where put into an internment camp, under Orders from General DeWitt, because they where of Japanese ancestry (Alonso 59). With this Public law 503 and the Executive Order 9066 Violated the Constitution and should have been struck down, Another argument from Korematsu was that he was declared an “Un loyal” Citizen with out any chance to defend himself. Korematsu believed he was denied his right to “Due Process” or right to have your Arguments against a crime herd by jury. This guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Though he was given Due Process when he was charged for violating Public law 503 (Alonso 63). He was not given Due Process when he was imprisoned for being of Japanese ancestry. Korematsu argued that he was never given a chance to declare his loyalty; he was just labeled a threat to the Nation and thrown in a camp. (Alonso 64). Korematsu attorneys’ went on to attack Public law 503, saying the Constitutionality of the transfer of power to General DeWitt was done poorly and Congress failed at its duty to give enough guidance and instruction when transferring power. Public law 503 was too general and never placed a limit on what restrictions should have been made or how any one is to be notified of these restrictions. (Alonso 65). The ACLU also attacked DeWitt in the case, arguing the final report DeWitt filed, that supported the evacuation of people of Japanese ancestry as a measure of defending the west cost, was in fact a “wholly untrustworthy document” as DeWitt failed to prove any danger to anyone from Japanese-Ancestry (Alonso 67). The JACL (Japanese American Citizens League) submitted its “amicus” also attacking DeWitt. Saying DeWitt’s motives for creating such Orders was on grounds of his racism towards the Japanese (Alonso 68). DeWitt is quoted to have said “a jap is a jap” and many other anti-Japanese rants (Alonso 68). The United States side of the case, Represented by Edward Ennis, Ralph Fuchs, and John Burling. The United States Involved having to only prove one factor in the case, and that was that Korematsu broke the law when he refused to evacuate. (Alonso 51). This wasn’t difficult because Korematsu knowingly admitted to breaking the evacuation order (Touro Law 2). On December 18, 1944 the Supreme Court came to its decision in this landmark case. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court. In the Ruling of the Supreme Court was in three parts. The first part of the ruling states that Civilian Exclusion Order Number 34 (the order Korematsu broke and was appealing) was upheld as Constitutional (Touro Law 1). The Supreme Court stated that at the time the order was made and when Korematsu was charged with violating it the Order was necessary to insure national security (Touro Law 1). Also that Congress stated at the end of the Hirabayasi Trial that the evacuation of Japanese-Americans was pertinent because of the population groups evident amount of disloyal members (Touro Law 3). The second part of the ruling states that the necessities of this and other orders sending those of Japanese ancestry into assembly centers, and then to Relocation centers as well as the Validity of those orders where not the issue in this proceeding (Touro Law 1). The Third part of the ruling was the ruling on whether or not Korematsu was guilty, or if he got his appeal, the Supreme Court denied Korematsu his appeal the Supreme Court stating “” Even though evacuation and detention in the assembly center where inseparable , the order under which the petitioner (Korematsu) was convicted was nevertheless valid”( Touro Law 1). The case ended with a big disappointment to both Korematsu and Japanese-Americans losing their shot at freedom and equality.
With the case over a question come to mind; what effect did the case have on United States and American History?
The historical relevance and general knowledge of this case and its out come would have fallen into obscurity as most Japanese-Americans did not speak of their experiences in the internment camps with their family and friends (Bai 38).
The case as well the injustice of Fred Korematsu would have faded into obscurity if not in 1981 Legal Historian Peter Irons had not asked the Justice department for access to the case files. The case files containing memos of lawyer who has accused the Solicitor General of purgry, stating the Solicitor General lied to the Supreme Court about the real threat from Japanese-Americans (Bai 38). When asked by Irons, Korematsu agreed to go back to court. In going back to court he became and advocate to the injustice of Japanese-American internment camps in the 1940’s. When Korematsu was offered a settlement offer of a pardon for his crime, but not cleared from his record he refused, saying “ As long as my record stands in Federal court, any American citizen can be held in prison or in concentration camps without a trial or a hearing” (Bai 38). The Judge in the case agreed and ruled Korematsu as innocent and that internment was illegal, the Supreme Court struck down the “bill” and declared it un-constitution. In 1998 President Bill Clinton Awarded Korematsu with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for his Principal Resistance. In 2004 outraged at the situation in Guantanamo Bay Involving Arabs, and suspected the same problems with them as with the
Internment camps. Still after 45 years the President and Congress apologized to theses who suffered in the camps, the Supreme Court never issued a formal apology. Korematsu died from a Respiratory Illness in March of 2005, said to have been the Voice against the Internment (Bai 38, Armor/Wright 159). In March of 1983 a case was heard by the Supreme Court, “Honri V. United States” which sought damages for the violation of civil rights. The case was dismissed until new evidence became available in June of 1987 and the case is still in appeals court. In 1987 Congress proposed a bill to provide restitution and an apology. This bill also known as “Senate bill 1009 and House bill H. 422.” The bill provided an apology and compensation to the surviving members of the camps in 1988 there where 60,000 surviving members. The bill provides for $20,000 per internee as well as a full pardon (Armor/Wright 156-159). The bill though an apology and reparations/compensation was short lived for survivors being there where so few alive at the time the reparations, as most of the survivors where in their 90’s (Alonso 105). Though most of those who did receive their reparation checks where happy, some of them end up starting scholarships in memory of the Internment (Alonso 100). What effect did the Supreme Court case “Korematsu v. United States” have on United States and American History? The case has negative expect on the Japanese side of this, as it seems this was the only imprisonment of a set race to this day.

Alonso, Karen. Korematsu V. United States. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc. ©1998
Armor, John; Wright Peter MANZANAR New York: Random House inc. © 1988
Bai, Matt “He Said No to Internment” New York Times: December 25, 2005 Page 38
Roosevelt, Franklin. "Executive Order 9066." Manzanar Historical Site. 12 Feb 1942. National Park Service. 07 Dec 2007
.
Touro Law, "Korematsu v. United States." PROJECT P.A.T.C.H.. 1996. Touro College Jacob D.Fuchsberg Law Center. 03 Dec 2007
.