Catoon Catalogue Court Case: Korematsu vs. United State

Section 1: Overview of Korematsu vs. Untied State

During World War II (WWII 1939-1945) the Nazi advance to conquer Europe and the recent attack of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, forced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to make an order to have all Americans of Japanese descent move into internment camps, in fear of espionages (Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34).[1]^,3 Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, disguised himself as Mexican American to escape from the persecution of his people, but he was later arrested for disobeying the executive order and sent to an internment camp.^1,[2] Fred Korematsu challenged his conviction for it was unconstitutional and discriminatory  to imprison the loyal and innocent Japanese American base by those who supported the Japanese Empire .¹ As of December 1944, the Supreme Court had ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of the United State as quoted by Justice Hugo Black “"There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some [Japanese Americans], the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and the time was short"

Section 2: Facts of the Case

Fred Korematsu was arrested for not following Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 and remaining in West coast of San Leandro, California.[3] Mr. Korematsu said "All of them turned their backs on me at that time because they thought I was a troublemaker. I thought what the military was doing was unconstitutional. I was really upset because I was branded as an enemy alien when I'm an American."² In other words the government issuing the transfer of the Japanese Americans was discriminating based on race.¹ Also it violated the Sixth Amendment (Criminal Prosecution- Grand Jury, Right to Confront and to Counsel).[4] Others argued that the order was for the protection the United States against the enemies of Allies, such as the Axis powers and their spy throughout the countries.

Section 3: Frame the Issue

            Fred Korematsu witnessed the forced relocation of his people seeing that as unconstitutional which is discriminating against his ethnic group. The issues of the case that we faced were: Is it right to imprison a whole ethnic group for the protection of the United States? Should we stand up to this injustice? Why or Why not? If so, how would we stop it? What do we value most, our protection by persecuting a whole ethnic group or upholding the Bill of Right and the Constitution of the United State to preserve the rights of our fellow citizen no matter what? Was the order the only option that President Roosevelt had to combat the fear of espionages and sabotage?

Section 4: Discuss the Arguments

After the federal government ruled in favor of the States, Fred later brought his appeal to the Supreme Court saying that the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was beyond the three Branches of Government’s power and racist for that order only targeted those of Japanese descent.[5] The Government’s counterattack was that the “internment” of the Japanese American was justified for the war effort much like American rationing and the purchasing of the “War Bond” during the war, and they found evidence that there was espionage within the Japanese American race and couldn’t separate the disloyal from the loyal citizen.^5,[6]

Justice Black is one of six justices that wrote the majority opinion that was in favor of the State. It was not really unconstitutional for the restriction of a single ethnic group; no loyalty was called into question. He included the “Hirabayashi v. United States” case as reference. The “Hirabayashi” case is similar to this case as Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, was caught violating curfew and was convicted.[7] Here, as in the Hirabayashi case, ". . . we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons could not readily be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety, which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it."[8] In other words, he justified the reason why the military and Congress had to act because it protected us from espionage and sabotage. With the combination of the evidence proving that we cannot trust the Japanese American who swear loyalty to the Japan Empire and the upcoming war that we are participating in, the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was a just order.[9]

Justice Murphy is one of three Justices that represent the dissenting opinion to the order which was called by him the “Legalization of Racism”[10]. Both Justice  Murphy and Jackson stated that the order violated both the Fifth (Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process) and Fourteenth Amendment (Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt)[11]. The Government may have proof of some Japanese American disloyalty, the misinformation and the half-truth that spread throughout the country is the leading reason for prejudice against the Japanese American; and had made America into dictatorial tyrannies to which we promise to destroy. He believes that we are “falling into the ugly abyss of racism.”^10,[12]    

Section 5: Reach a Decision

            In a Six to Three opinion in favor of the United States, Judge Black said that that the Three Branches act within their authority and didn’t violate any of the Twenty-Seven Amendments.¹² We have seen a similar event that was happening during WWII which was the “Holocaust”! So what makes us different from Hitler’s action during WWII? Justice Black put much importance on the comparison between the relocation centers and Germany’s concentration camps because they used the same tactics to force a whole ethnic group into a camp. I agree with Justice Murphy implying that this is just rationalizing the prejudice, racism, and discrimination. I believe this theory only applies to the public opinion toward the Japanese Americans, but the US Government is only reacting to Pearl Harbor, yet I expect they are one in the same. Thirty-nine years after his conviction, he was free from prison, and became a symbol of civil rights for the Japanese Americans for challenging the World War II internment orders. In 1998 Fred Korematsu was honored by President Bill Clinton and won a national apology for the imprisonment of his people. People in the judicial schools or businesses have seen the ruling as one of the worst in the court's history, which I agree.[13]

 Women, children, and men forced to leave their life for something they could not control for the mistake some (Japanese American) have committed. No one should face the solitude, the fear, and the isolation that the United States put on them. Korematsu vs. US only shows how far prejudice would go if left unchecked and could even affect the “Great Land of Opportunity”.

---

[1] “Overview.” Streetlaws. 20 Sept. 2013 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/korematsu_v_united_states#Tab=Overview>

[2] “Fred Korematsu.” The Washington Post 3 April 2005 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22004-2005Apr2.html>

[3] 323 US 214 - Supreme Court Korematsu v. United States, 1944 <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17472067348800549778&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr>

[4] “Sixth Amendment.” Legal Information Institution. 24 September 2013 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment>

[5] “Background.” Streetlaws. 20 Sept. 2013 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/297/Background_Summary__Questions_>

[6] “Rationing and War Bonds.” Civilian “War Effort” Documents, World War II. 25 September 2013 http://library.truman.edu/manuscripts/W2-WWII%20War%20Effort.asp>

[7]“Hirabayashi vs. United States.” Oyez. 25 September 2013

[8]“Majority Opinion.” Streetlaw. 25 September 2013 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/323/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Majority_Opinion>

[9] Ibid of #8

[10] “Dissenting Opinion.” Streetlaw. 25 September 2013 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/324/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion>

[11] “The Constitution of the United States of America.” Legal Information Institution. 25 September 2013 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/>

[12] “Decision Summery.” Streetlaw. 25 September 2013 <http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/325/Summary_of_the_Decision> 

[13] Ibid of #2