KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES (1944)
ORIGINS OF THE CASE
Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941, U.S. military officials argued that Japanese Americans posed a threat to the nation’s
security. Based on recommendations from the military, President Franklin Roosevelt
issued Executive Order 9066, which gave military officials the power to limit the civil
rights of Japanese Americans. Military authorities began by setting a curfew for Japanese
Americans. Later, they forced Japanese Americans from their homes and moved them into
detention camps. Fred Korematsu was convicted of defying the military order to leave his
home. At the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Korematsu appealed
that conviction.
THE RULING
The Court upheld Korematsu’s conviction and argued that military necessity
made internment constitutional.
LEGAL REASONING
Executive Order 9066 was clearly aimed at one group of
people—Japanese Americans. Korematsu argued that
this order was unconstitutional because it was based on
race. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Hugo Black
agreed “that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil
rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.”
However, in this case, he said, the restrictions were
based on “a military imperative” and not “group pun-
ishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese ori-
gin.” As such, Justice Black stated that the restrictions
were constitutional.
“ Compulsory exclusion of large groups, . . . except
under circumstances of direct emergency and peril, is
inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions.
But when under conditions of modern warfare our
shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to
protect must be commensurate with the threatened
danger.
”
Justice Frank Murphy, however, dissented—he
opposed the majority. He believed that military necessity
was merely an excuse that could not conceal the racism
at the heart of the restrictions.
“ This exclusion . . . ought not to be approved. Such
exclusion goes over ‘the very brink of constitutional
power’ and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.
”
Two other justices also dissented, but Korematsu’s
conviction stood.
HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES
(JUNE 1943)
The Court upheld the conviction of a Japanese-
American man for breaking curfew. The Court argued
that the curfew was within congressional and presi-
dential authority.
EX PARTE ENDO
(DECEMBER 1944)
The Court ruled that a Japanese-American girl, whose
loyalty had been clearly established, could not be held
in an internment camp.
RELATED CASES
U.S. CONSTITUTION, FIFTH AMENDMENT (1791)
“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.”
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 (1942)
“I hereby authorize and direct the Secretar y of War . . .
to prescribe military areas in such places and of such
extent as he . . . may determine, from which any or all
persons may be excluded.”
LEGISLATION
LEGAL SOURCES
802 C
HAPTER 25
