Korematsu v. United States
323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Rule of Law:
Legal restrictions that curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are subject to the most rigid scrutiny, but they are not automatically unconstitutional and may be justified by a pressing public necessity, such as the perceived threat of espionage and sabotage during wartime.
Facts:
- After the United States entered World War II following the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066.
- This Executive Order authorized military commanders to designate military areas from which any or all persons could be excluded for national security purposes.
- Pursuant to this authority, the Commanding General of the Western Command issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34.
- This order directed that all persons of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens, be excluded from a designated military area in San Leandro, California, after May 9, 1942.
- Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, lived within this designated area.
- No question was raised as to Korematsu's loyalty to the United States.
- Korematsu knowingly remained in the restricted area after the deadline, in violation of the order.
Procedural Posture:
- Korematsu was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34.
- Following a plea of not guilty, Korematsu was convicted in the district court.
- Korematsu, the appellant, appealed the conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, with the United States as appellee, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a military exclusion order, issued during wartime and based on ancestry, which forces an American citizen to leave his home and community, violate the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Black
No. The military exclusion order is a constitutional exercise of the government's war powers. While all legal restrictions targeting a single racial group are immediately suspect and must face rigid scrutiny, they can be justified by a pressing public necessity. Here, the military's judgment that there was an urgent need to prevent espionage and sabotage on the West Coast provided that necessity. The Court deferred to the military's conclusion that it was impossible to quickly and reliably separate loyal Japanese Americans from disloyal ones, and thus the temporary exclusion of the entire group was a justifiable security measure, not an act of racial antagonism.
Dissenting - Justice Roberts
Yes. This order unconstitutionally convicts a citizen for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp based solely on his ancestry. The exclusion order cannot be viewed in isolation; it was part of an indivisible plan that forced individuals into a dilemma. Korematsu was subject to conflicting orders: one prohibiting him from leaving the military area and a later one compelling him to leave, with the only permissible exit being to report to an assembly center for internment. This was a cleverly devised trap to imprison citizens without due process.
Dissenting - Justice Murphy
Yes. The exclusion order falls into the 'ugly abyss of racism' and is unconstitutional. The military's claim of necessity did not meet the judicial test of being reasonably related to an 'immediate, imminent, and impending' public danger. The justification for the order was not based on credible evidence of disloyalty but on unsubstantiated assumptions, racial prejudice, and sociological claims that are not entitled to judicial deference. The government failed to provide any adequate reason for not conducting individual loyalty hearings as it did for German and Italian Americans.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
Yes. While military authorities may take actions that are not subject to constitutional tests during an emergency, civil courts should not enforce such orders. Enforcing this military expedient transforms it into a legal precedent, validating the principle of racial discrimination in criminal law. This creates a dangerous 'loaded weapon' for future authorities to use against any group by claiming a plausible need. The principle of the Constitution is that guilt is personal and not inheritable; this order violates that fundamental tenet.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'strict scrutiny' standard of judicial review for laws that classify people by race, even though it paradoxically upheld the racially discriminatory order. The decision represents a high point of judicial deference to military power during wartime and is now widely viewed as a major failure of the Supreme Court to protect individual rights against racial prejudice and war hysteria. Although the legal holding has never been explicitly overturned, it has been morally and politically condemned, including by the government itself, serving as a cautionary tale about the fragility of civil liberties in times of crisis.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"