The Consequences of Korematsu v.

United States

Kayla Cook

Heritage High School

AP United States History

Mr. Edwards

31 May 2017
 Cook 1

December 7, 1941 is infamously known as the day that the United States was attacked by

the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The attack immediately prompted the United States to enter WWII,

but it also led to a series of changes of policy within the nation as well. In 1942, President

Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the Secretary of War and

the US Armed Forces the power to declare certain areas within the US as military zones, and to

restrict access to those areas. Xenophobia reigned as many Americans believed that the Japanese

immigrants on the West Coast were conspiring against the nation to help plan another attack on

the US. So, although not specifically stated in the executive order, it gave a legal basis for the

removal of over 112,000 Japanese Americans from the West Coast into designated internment

camps, euphemized as relocation centers. Fred Korematsu, an American-born 23 year old, was

arrested for refusing to leave his home in California. He sued on the grounds that as an American

citizen he had a right to live wherever he wished, but in a 6-3 decision in Korematsu v. United

States, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to intern these citizens stating that in times of war,

the curbing of civil rights was justified. While appalling, the restriction of civil rights has

become a commonality during crisis within the US. The decision made in Korematsu v. United

States developed an enduring precedent that prioritized national security over individual liberties

by validating the federal governments use of absolute authority in executive orders, and by

institutionalizing racial discrimination throughout society through the legal decision.

The Korematsu v. United States decision validated the stretch of executive power during

wartime, which in turn established a model for the authority of the federal government during

future times of crisis. Both the chief of naval operations and the Armys deputy chief of staff,

Adm. Harold Stark and Gen. Mark Clark consecutively, had testified before Congress that the
 Cook 2

Pacific Coast wasnt in danger of invasion, and that the likelihood of such an immigrant uprising

occurring was just as great with German or Italian immigrants (New York Times, 2007).

Roosevelt, however, was put under extreme pressure by other military and political advisors to

develop a policy that would prevent the Japanese immigrants from causing an uprising.

Roosevelt gave authority of the enforcement of Executive Order 9066 to the War Department.

Because of FDRs stretched power during World War II, he was able to authorize the secretary

of war and any military commander designated by him to prescribe military areas from which

any or all persons may be excluded (Exec. Order No. 9066). This increased executive power

was solidified in the Korematsu case when it was decided that citizens of the United States must

comply with all military orders because citizenship has its responsibilities as well as its

privileges, and in time of war the burden is always heavier, as stated by Mr. Justice Black when

delivering the opinion of the Court. Black also stated that Korematsu was not excluded because

of his racial ancestry, but because the properly constituted military authorities decided that

the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be

segregated. These statements made in the ruling of the Korematsu case illustrate the power that

the executive branch had over even the judicial decisions during World War II. Because the

Korematsu decision ruled in favor of upholding the executive decision, it subsequently upheld

the expanded executive power, and this will become a pattern that plays into other times of war,

such as with President George W. Bush.

The decision made in Korematsu v. United States also created long term effects by

institutionalizing racial discrimination within the judicial branch. Across the nation, but

especially on the West Coast, people had been putting up signs that read Japs Keep Moving,
 Cook 3

This is A White Mans Neighborhood, or Japs Keep Out since the 1920s (National Japanese

American Historical Society, 1920). There was a great amount of prejudice and discrimination

against the racial group due to their increasing presence in the workforce, but after Pearl Harbor,

this racial prejudice was institutionalized by not only Executive Order 9066, but by the

Korematsu decision, and its failure to address the racial discrimination that it represented. The

Korematsu case was not the only Supreme Court case that challenged Executive Order 9066,

however. Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, another American-born man with Japanese ancestry, had

disobeyed a curfew set for enemy aliens and American citizens of Japanese descent. He reported

to the FBI office that he intended to violate the exclusion on the basis of his belief in the U.S.

Constitution, and in 1943 the Supreme Court heard his case. The Court upheld his curfew

conviction, and Chief Justice Stone stated that some infringement on individual liberty, was

permissible during war times and the the Constitution allowed this because based upon the

recognition of facts and circumstances which indicate that a group of one national extraction may

menace that safety more than others (Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943). The Korematsu case

differed, however, because it is the only case in Supreme Court history in which the Court, using

a strict scrutiny standard for possible racial discrimination, upheld a restriction on civil liberties

(Varol, 2010). This means that the Supreme Court applied its most strict interpretation of the law

in order to justify the internment of the Japanese as superior to individual rights. While Mr.

Justice Brown attempted to explain in the declaration of the majority opinion that racism and

ethnic prejudice was not the reason for Korematsus exclusion, it is evident that those very things

dictated the Executive order in the first place. The government and private propaganda led

Americans to believe that the Japanese were a devious, malign, and cruel people during World
 Cook 4

War II (Brinkley, 2009). It is evident that the citizenship of Japanese Americans was not of

importance to the federal government through their internment; General John L. DeWitt, senior

military commander of the West Coast, said A Jap is a Jap. It makes no difference whether he is

an American citizen or not, (Brinkley, 2009). Additionally, the Korematsu case to this day still

represents the racial discrimination in the judicial courts, because it has never been explicitly

overturned. While Executive Order 9066 was eventually terminated by President Ford in 1976,

and in 1988 Congress repudiated the Korematsu case in the Civil Liberties Act, which paid

reparations to detainees, the 1944 Japanese internment decision has never actually been

overturned (Feldman, 2016). This stands to show that the case still has an impact on United

States domestic policy, and has set the precedent of using federal government authority as an

excuse to discrimination.

Korematsu v. United States is one of the major pinpoints in American history that

continues the pattern of restricting civil liberties during wartime. This pattern has begun as early

as 1798, when President John Adams, during an undeclared war with France, passed the Alien

and Sedition Acts, which made it more difficult for immigrants to vote or enter the country, and

prohibited public opposition to the government. One of Americas most famous presidents,

Abraham Lincoln, suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War in 1863, giving him

the power to imprison anyone deemed necessary without giving reason. During World War I, the

case of Schenck v. United States upheld the decision that the freedom of speech could be curbed

by the federal government if the words represented to society a clear and present danger. The

Korematsu decision followed suit with these events by also prohibiting certain liberties from

citizens, but it also framed a recent policy within the U.S.: the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. As a
 Cook 5

part of President George W. Bushs war on terror following the 9/11 attacks, he passed the

PATRIOT Act, which granted broad surveillance and detention authority to the government.

Each of these pieces of American history brought about controversy over the extent to which

national security and individual rights can be balanced. There is no simple answer to decide

which is more valuable, and of course each individual event faces its own confounding factors

that impact the seemingly correct decision. However, it is evident that the Korematsu v. United

States case has brought about a continuous pattern that presses the nation even in 2017.
 Cook 1

Primary Source 1: Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry

H.I.P.P Analysis of Primary Source 1

Historical Context

Following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans began to face a

heightened discrimination against them that not only affected them culturally, but domestic

policy was developed to change the way Japanese Americans lived within the nation. Executive

Order 9066 was issued by President FDR in reaction to the paranoia of the War Department that

the American citizens of Japanese ancestry might turn against their adopted country to aid Japan

in an invasion of the West Coast. Of the 100,000 Japanese Americans interned, only 30% were

actually foreign born. This poster is General John L. DeWitts first order to force the

Japanese--citizens and aliens alike-- out of San Francisco. Japanese Americans were given less

than 48 hours to vacate their homes and businesses. They could carry only what they could in a

few suitcases, and after the war ended and they returned home, they found that their property,

land, and homes had been taken over by other families.

Intended Audience

This poster was posted at the First and Front Streets in San Francisco directing the

removal of people with Japanese ancestry. It explained to the citizens being removed what they

were allowed to bring, and instructed them to go to the War Relocation Authority centers to be

relocated. However, as was said previously, these citizens had less than 48 hours to leave. It also

was likely posted to relieve other American citizens who held racial prejudices against the

Japanese within the United States, by showing them that action was being taken to remove the

ethnic group that was viewed as a threat.

Point of View

This poster reflects the paranoia that spiked following the Pearl Harbor attacks. The War

Department put a great amount of pressure on President Franklin D. Roosevelt to place

restrictions on Japanese immigrants in the United States in order to prevent another attack by

Japan from happening. However, the majority of those who were relocated and interned were

actually American born citizens, who had Japanese parents or were of Japanese descent. That is

what was most controversial about the Korematsu case.

Purpose

The purpose of this poster and of the policy that the poster describes was to prevent an

invasion of the West Coast from Japanese immigrants. However, one of the bigger reasons for

this policy was to ease the fear within the United States during war. Pearl Harbor was the first

time a World War attack had happened on American soil, and so by removing the citizens who

most visibly represented the attackers, it gave other Americans a feeling of safety. Though it is

evidently a violation of civil rights, at the time the Korematsu v. United States case upheld it,

declaring that the military has the right to take whatever action in order to protect the whole of

the nation.

Citation for Primary Source 1:

Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration.

Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry. Digital Exhibits. Accessed May 30,

2017.
 Cook 1

Primary Source 2: Jackson, R., Dissenting Opinion from Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and

detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process

clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the

order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military

emergency. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to

the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions

such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in

criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a

loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an

urgent need.
 Cook 2

H.I.P.P Analysis of Primary Source 2

Historical Context

Mr. Justice Robert Jackson is one of the three dissenting justices who objected to the

majoritys ruling in the case of Korematsu v. United States, which took place in 1944. The court

upheld the decision to intern Japanese American citizens, stating that in times of war, the curbing

of civil rights was justified and that the Court could not second-guess military decisions. This

occurred during WWII, just after the United States had entered after the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Executive Order 9066 forced thousands of Japanese Americans to leave their homes and

possessions to be relocated to the interior. Fred Korematsu, the man in the trial, sued the United

States for violating his rights as a citizen. Justice Jackson was one of the few justices who agreed

with Korematsu.

Intended Audience

Jackson is targeting not only the other justices at the Korematsu trial, but he is speaking

to the federal government as well. He is criticizing them for the decision to uphold the charges

against Mr. Korematsu. Not only is he frustrated with the Court for upholding the internment of

American citizens with Japanese ancestry, but he wants the federal government to understand

that he disagrees with the excess amount of power that both the military and president receive

during wartimes. He is condemning them for their suspension of civil liberties during wartime.

Point of View

Justice Jackson expresses his disagreement with the conviction of Fred Korematsu. But,

more than that, Justice Jackson believes that if the Supreme Court rationalizes the order, then

the Supreme Court has rationalized racial discrimination and it rationalizes the forceful
 Cook 3

evacuation of American citizens. For this reason, Jackson most ardently dissents from the

majority opinion. He believes this puts the future of the nation in danger, because it allows the

military to continually outstep its boundaries and generate its own power, which will put the

liberty of the nation at risk.

Purpose

Jacksons purpose in writing this dissenting opinion was to express the dangers that the

upholding of this decision in the Supreme Court will have on the rest of the nation. He wants to

condemn the justices who agreed with convicting Mr. Korematsu, and he wants to get the

attention of the executive branch in order to remind it that even though the country is at war,

there are boundaries for every branch of government. Though he cannot convince the Supreme

Court to change its decision, his purpose in writing this was to change future decisions that are

made by the Supreme Court.

Citation for Primary Source 2:

Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. Reports (1944): 214. Print.

Primary Source 3: Black, J., Opinion of the Court from Korematsu v. United States (1944)

...It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a

concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his

loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Our task would be simple, our duty clear,

were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of

racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers -- and we

deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps, with all the ugly connotations that term

implies -- we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into

outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented,

merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of

hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire,

because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and

felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency

of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West

Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in

our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do

just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities

considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot -- by availing

ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that, at that time, these actions were

unjustified.
 Cook 2

H.I.P.P Analysis of Primary Source 3

Historical Context

In this excerpt, Mr. Justice Black is delivering the opinion of the Court for the case of

Korematsu v. United States in 1944. The individuals most adversely affected by the war

domestically were the Japanese Americans living along the West Coast. Some 100,000

Japanese-American citizens were ordered to leave their homes for internment camps in the west.

Fred Korematsu refused, and then sued the United States. His case reached Supreme Court,

where he lost in a 6-3 decision that upheld his conviction.

Intended Audience

Mr. Justice Black in this passage is delivering the opinion to the rest of the Court, but his

message is also intended to reach citizens of the United States. He, in this excerpt, is explaining

that the case does not have anything to do with racial discrimination. He is attempting to show

other Americans, including those being interned, that the Executive Order is simply obeying the

demands of the military during a crisis, and that it is only sensible to obey these orders. Other

Japanese Americans that hear this will, in theory, realize that making a case against internment

will only be rejected because they, as citizens, must obey the law.

Point of View

In the opinion of Mr. Justice Black, the Korematsu v. United States case is not

comparable to forcing citizens into concentration camps because of their ancestry. He argues that

Korematsu was excluded from the Military Area because the United States is at war with the

Japanese Empire, and the military authority decided that the military urgency of the situation

demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily.
 Cook 3

Essentially, he is deciding that it does not matter the reasons for which the military makes orders,

Black is explaining that all citizens must simply obey. And because Fred Korematsu did not

obey, he must be convicted.

Purpose

Mr. Justice Blacks purpose in including this in the opinion of the Court, was to refute the

idea that this case regarded racism and ethnic discrimination. Such ideals could hurt the judicial

system, and so he directed the reasonings for the decision towards obeying the executive order

rather than towards the actual internment of Japanese Americans. He also included this to

explain to other Japanese Americans that their internment was not due to the idea that they may

be disloyal to the United States. Instead he again reminds them that it is only due to doing the

civil duties of an American citizen and taking precautions that the military deemed necessary.

Citation for Primary Source 3:

Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. Reports (1944): 214. Print.

Works Cited

Brinkley, Alan. American History: Connecting with the Past. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Education, 2009. Print.

Exec. Order No. 9066, 3 C.F.R. 1 (1942). Print.

"FDR Signs Executive Order 9066." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 29

May 2017.

Feldman, Noah. "Why Korematsu Is Not a Precedent." The New York Times. The New York

Times, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 29 May 2017.

Goodwin, Doris Kearns. No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front

in

World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Print.

Hirabayashi v. United States. 320 U.S. Supreme Court. 1943. Print.

"Japanese internment." Khan Academy. Khan Academy, 2016. Web. 29 May 2017.

Japs Keep Moving - This Is a White Man's Neighborhood." 1920. National Japanese American

Historical Society, n.p.

Konkoly, Toni. "Famous Dissents." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 2007. Web. 29 May

2017.

Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. Supreme Court. 1944. Print.

"Korematsu V. United States (1944)." C-SPAN Landmark Cases. National Cable Satellite

Corporation, 2016. Web. 29 May 2017.

"Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court." Korematsu v. United States. The Supreme Court

Historical Society, 2010. Web. 29 May 2017.

"Pearl Harbor Bombed." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 29 May 2017.

"Stretching Executive Power in Wartime." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May

2007. Web. 29 May 2017.

Varol, Ozan O. "Strict in Theory, but Accommodating in Fact." Missouri Law Review.

University

of Missouri School of Law, 2010. Web. 29 May 2017.

Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control Administration.

Instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry. Digital Exhibits. Accessed May 30,

2017.