Korematsu v. United States

 Korematsu v. United States

By Elizabeth Gonzalez

Awhile back in one of my many law courses we were asked to look at the original case for internment during World War ll.  We had to write out the case brief summarizing it and then give our opinion.  Of course, the opinion was written in APA format style long before I learned that in legal writing, thanks to my legal writing course, that in legal writing there are no “I’s,” “I believe, think, or feel.”  Nonetheless, this was my case brief, which was later used by the Instructor for future reference examples for other students to follow. 

Since my day’s blogging I have changed much.  I look at this nation so differently now.  I do see the United States as a “Nation of Laws” as former President George W. Bush had once put it.  Only I see this nation fractured, undecided, divided, but in all that negativity I see hope.  A hope that someday our nation will return to what our founding fathers had originally fought for and envisioned for this nation, one nation, under God.

Korematsu v. United States 

1. Facts of the Case:

During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military the authority to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas determined crucial to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.

2. Question:

Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

3. Conclusion:

The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."

During wartime, I believe that it is justified to deprive Americans of their civil liberties if the safety of the nation and its citizenry is in question.  During WW11, the Japanese were quite hostile and bold causing the Americans to become involved in the war due to the bombing at Pearl Harbor.  The American’s of that era did not want to be involved.  President Roosevelt knew of the impending disaster but chose not to act on the information he possessed.  He decided that the only way to get us “in the war” was to allow Pearl Harbor to happen.  As such, this now then involved all Americans.  Our men were sent abroad. In the case for internment, it was justified to keep all American’s safe and free from harm because Japan wanted to destroy the United States, which was their primary goal.  I believe no one knows for sure if there would have been conduct contrary to American law, such as espionage or otherwise by American Japanese citizens.  One must consider the time and era; at that time, it appeared to be the right thing to do.  To go back in retrospect and say that it is wrong for a nation to protect itself during a world war does not make sense.

This very case set precedent for our modern day equal protection law. (Hall. Feldmeier. Pg. 186.)  In the wake of September 11, 2001, I can empathize with why our government would behave in this manner. Perhaps prior to September 11, 2001, I would not have agreed, but I do close saying that for their time, their era, a world war, this was the right thing to do.  If our government does not protect us in the short run, we stand to lose everything in the long run.

 

Reference

 

Hall, Daniel E., Feldmeier P. 2009. The Presidency: Domestic Powers. 186-188. Constitutional Values.  Retrieved on August 23, 2011. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

 

 

Comments

[GoneWithTheWind]

Let's not foget now so far from those turbulent times that in December 1941 we took a huge hit on our forces and winning the war was in serious doubt. The feeling at the time was that this could be the end given the war in Europe as well. Secondly there was an active Japanese spy and sabotage network on the West coast who were trying to set the conditions for an invasion from Japan. Those people doing this were Japanese immigrants and first generation Japanese families. When other Japanese immigrants were asked to help identify potential spys and saboteurs the response was weak to non-existent. It was under these conditions that they decided to inter these people. Was it the right decision? We will never know since all of the spying and sabotage was prevented by the act. So in that vacumm it is easy to only highlight the harm done to those "innocent" people. I am sorry for their sufferring and even more sad that no effort was taken to preserve their property during this time. But keep in mind while those interned lived reasonably comfortably millions fought and died in horrible conditions (and yes I am aware many Japanese who were interned volunteered to serve). My uncle died in a Japanes prisonor of war camp and I would have gladly had him placed in an internment camp over that fate. This issue is more complex then most people believe.

[Brian]

That's BS! There is no evidence that Japan wanted to destroy the United States. In fact the historical data shows that Japan wanted to keep the United States out of it's interests in Asia. If Japan really wanted to destroy the U.S it would have done and could have done far more damage than just pearl harbor! Think about it!

[Brian]

And this is why the right wing nuts are accused of being racist and with these statements Elizabeth, it just may be true in some instances. The internment was wrong no matter how you put it. Racial prejudice was strong against Japanese at the time as was against all Asians. And this is why those of German descent were not interned any where near to the extent as the Japanese even though German U-boats were wreaking havoc on the east coast of the United States!

[Mike]

The idea that Roosevelt wanted Japan to attack is revisionist history that holds absolutely no water.

The facts behind the case are far more complicated than you present from your 1L case brief. In fact, his conviction was eventually overturned in 1983 because the Government had suppressed information that would have materially affected the outcome of the original case.

Finally, I encourage you to read the dissenting opinions. It's hard to find that racism was not behind Korematsu. The detention was based on race. That the Supremes managed to originally uphold the case, even with the application of strict scrutiny, is hard to fathom.

If anything, Korematsu stands as an interesting lens through which to examine the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo. It is also a warning that we should guard against prejudices based on race (or sex, or religion, etc), especially when public opinions are inflamed by events.