Korematsu v. U.S.
Summary of the Case
Fred Korematsu was born in Oakland, California on January 30, 1919. He was the third born son of four to his Japanese immigrant parents that ran a floral nursery business in Oakland, California. After the U.S. had entered World War II Korematsu attempted to join the U.S. National Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard, but was turned away by military officers because of his race. He then became a welder at the docks in Oakland and quickly rose through the ranks to become a foreman. One day when he arrived at work to punch in for his day on the job Korematsu found a notice to report to the union office, where he was suddenly fired from his job due to his Japanese ancestry.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii by Japan on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, Authorizing the U.S. military to remove over 120,000 people of Japanese descent, the majority of whom were American citizens, from their homes and force them into Japanese Internment camps throughout the United States. Fred Korematsu decided to defy the order and carry on his life as an American citizen. He had undergone minor plastic surgery to alter his eyes in an attempt to look les Japanese. He had also changed his name from Fred Korematsu to Clyde Sarah and claimed to be of Spanish and Hawaiian descent.
On May 30, 1942 he was arrested on a street corner in San Leandro, California, and was taken to San Francisco county jail. Ernest Besig, the director of the San Francisco office of American Civil Liberties Union, visited Korematsu in jail and asked him if he was willing to become the test case to challenge the constitutionality of the government’s imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Korematsu was convicted September 8, 1942 of violating the military orders issued under Executive Order 9066. He was placed on five-year probation. He lived at the Tanforan “Assembly Center” in San Bruno, California, for several months. This was a former horseracing track where Japanese Americans were first held before being sent to the more permanent Japanese Internment camps.
Arguments for the defendant include the fact that by subjecting Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment as a group the United States has denied them due process of law. The government as well as denying them due process has also denied the Japanese race basic American rights by relocating them based upon something that their country had done. It is also not possible for the court to either confirm or deny that the military authorities’ claim that it was impossible to quickly separate the dangerous from the neutral is impossible.
The prosecution argument could include that the constitution gives the president power as commander in chief of the military. Commanding military includes issuing orders as necessary to help the military carry out its duties to protect the nation. The armed services must protect us as a society, not our constitution. In a time of war, as declared in the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, the U.S. may apprehend, intern, and otherwise restrict the freedom of “alien enemies” upon declaration of war.
The main laws in this case include the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th amendments in the United States Constitution. Other laws included in this ruling are Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is one final law that has the potential to impact the case. The Writ of Habeas Corpus requires a person under arrest to be brought a judge or into court.
The Espionage Act of 1917, Sedition Act of 1918, Alien Enemies Act of 1798, and Alien Registration Act of 1940 also all apply to this case. The Espionage Act of 1917 was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment. The Japanese could not be recruited by the military. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government. This is in violation of our freedom of speech. The Alien Enemies Act of 1978 was used on the basis for incarcerating enemy aliens and confiscating their property during World War II. As a result Japanese were arrested and interned for the duration of the war and some were later deported to Japan. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 made it illegal for any resident or citizen of the United States of America to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.
Executive Order 9066 gave the military broad powers to ban any citizen from a fifty- to sixty-mile-wide coastal area stretching from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona. The order also authorized transporting these citizens to assembly centers set up and government by the military in California, Arizona, Washington state, and Oregon.
Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was issued by General DeWitt and ordered all people of Japanese Ancestry, whether citizen or non-citizens, who were living in “Military Area No. 1” to report to assembly centers, where they would live until moving to permanent “Relocation Centers.”
In simple terms the 4th amendment says that the police don’t have the right to search or seize persons without a proper warrant that is issued by the court. Evidence gained as a result of an unlawful search for seizure cannot be used at the court trial of the person from whom it was seized. During World War II police and federal officials frequently searched houses of Japanese people without a warrant.
The 5th amendment states that a person can only be tried for a serious federal crime if he or she has been charged by a grand jury. Korematsu claimed that Exclusion Order 9066 violated his personal rights as specified by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By subjecting Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment as a group, the United States has denied them due process of law. Due Process requires individuals to be proven guilty through individual, established procedures.
The 6th amendment states that a person accused of crime has the right to be tried in court without undue delay and by an impartial jury. Korematsu’s Jury was made up of the Supreme Court Justices, who had the potential to be partial to the United States’ side of the case.
The 7th amendment states that a civil case does not involve criminal matters. It is a dispute between private parties or between the government and a private party. Korematsu was not given a trial by jury, rather he was given a trial by the Supreme Court Justices. Although this specific amendment has less of an impact of the overall case, the seventh amendment states that in order to have a bench trial (Trial by judge without jury), both parties need to agree to this. Korematsu was never given the choice.
The 8th amendment states that bail is the sum of money that a person accused of crime may be required to post as a guarantee that he or she will appear in court at the proper time. The amount of bail required and/or a fine imposed as punishment must bear a reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the crime involved in the case. This amendment, as well as the 7th, has almost no impact on the ruling of the court.
The 14th amendment states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Although this refers to states, it also applies to the federal government. The government is obliged to provide equal rights; if the rights of a particular racial group are taken the reason for doing so must pass the highest scrutiny possible. Korematsu along with many other Japanese and Japanese Americans living on or near the West Coast of the United States were denied their rights as Americans and were sent to internment camps.
So far I feel like the ruling that was made wasn’t based upon what was morally right, but was based upon what the laws and regulations set previously had stated. I do believe that Korematsu violated Executive Order 9066, but I do not believe that the order was constitutional. It wasn’t constitutional because it singled out an entire race because of something their country had done. It singled them out to “protect America” but in reality all it did was alienate people who had nothing to do with the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Although both sides of the argument do have valid points that can sway the final decision, it will come down to how everything is presented in the trial.
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii by Japan on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, Authorizing the U.S. military to remove over 120,000 people of Japanese descent, the majority of whom were American citizens, from their homes and force them into Japanese Internment camps throughout the United States. Fred Korematsu decided to defy the order and carry on his life as an American citizen. He had undergone minor plastic surgery to alter his eyes in an attempt to look les Japanese. He had also changed his name from Fred Korematsu to Clyde Sarah and claimed to be of Spanish and Hawaiian descent.
On May 30, 1942 he was arrested on a street corner in San Leandro, California, and was taken to San Francisco county jail. Ernest Besig, the director of the San Francisco office of American Civil Liberties Union, visited Korematsu in jail and asked him if he was willing to become the test case to challenge the constitutionality of the government’s imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Korematsu was convicted September 8, 1942 of violating the military orders issued under Executive Order 9066. He was placed on five-year probation. He lived at the Tanforan “Assembly Center” in San Bruno, California, for several months. This was a former horseracing track where Japanese Americans were first held before being sent to the more permanent Japanese Internment camps.
Arguments for the defendant include the fact that by subjecting Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment as a group the United States has denied them due process of law. The government as well as denying them due process has also denied the Japanese race basic American rights by relocating them based upon something that their country had done. It is also not possible for the court to either confirm or deny that the military authorities’ claim that it was impossible to quickly separate the dangerous from the neutral is impossible.
The prosecution argument could include that the constitution gives the president power as commander in chief of the military. Commanding military includes issuing orders as necessary to help the military carry out its duties to protect the nation. The armed services must protect us as a society, not our constitution. In a time of war, as declared in the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, the U.S. may apprehend, intern, and otherwise restrict the freedom of “alien enemies” upon declaration of war.
The main laws in this case include the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th amendments in the United States Constitution. Other laws included in this ruling are Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is one final law that has the potential to impact the case. The Writ of Habeas Corpus requires a person under arrest to be brought a judge or into court.
The Espionage Act of 1917, Sedition Act of 1918, Alien Enemies Act of 1798, and Alien Registration Act of 1940 also all apply to this case. The Espionage Act of 1917 was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment. The Japanese could not be recruited by the military. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government. This is in violation of our freedom of speech. The Alien Enemies Act of 1978 was used on the basis for incarcerating enemy aliens and confiscating their property during World War II. As a result Japanese were arrested and interned for the duration of the war and some were later deported to Japan. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 made it illegal for any resident or citizen of the United States of America to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.
Executive Order 9066 gave the military broad powers to ban any citizen from a fifty- to sixty-mile-wide coastal area stretching from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona. The order also authorized transporting these citizens to assembly centers set up and government by the military in California, Arizona, Washington state, and Oregon.
Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was issued by General DeWitt and ordered all people of Japanese Ancestry, whether citizen or non-citizens, who were living in “Military Area No. 1” to report to assembly centers, where they would live until moving to permanent “Relocation Centers.”
In simple terms the 4th amendment says that the police don’t have the right to search or seize persons without a proper warrant that is issued by the court. Evidence gained as a result of an unlawful search for seizure cannot be used at the court trial of the person from whom it was seized. During World War II police and federal officials frequently searched houses of Japanese people without a warrant.
The 5th amendment states that a person can only be tried for a serious federal crime if he or she has been charged by a grand jury. Korematsu claimed that Exclusion Order 9066 violated his personal rights as specified by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By subjecting Japanese and Japanese Americans to internment as a group, the United States has denied them due process of law. Due Process requires individuals to be proven guilty through individual, established procedures.
The 6th amendment states that a person accused of crime has the right to be tried in court without undue delay and by an impartial jury. Korematsu’s Jury was made up of the Supreme Court Justices, who had the potential to be partial to the United States’ side of the case.
The 7th amendment states that a civil case does not involve criminal matters. It is a dispute between private parties or between the government and a private party. Korematsu was not given a trial by jury, rather he was given a trial by the Supreme Court Justices. Although this specific amendment has less of an impact of the overall case, the seventh amendment states that in order to have a bench trial (Trial by judge without jury), both parties need to agree to this. Korematsu was never given the choice.
The 8th amendment states that bail is the sum of money that a person accused of crime may be required to post as a guarantee that he or she will appear in court at the proper time. The amount of bail required and/or a fine imposed as punishment must bear a reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the crime involved in the case. This amendment, as well as the 7th, has almost no impact on the ruling of the court.
The 14th amendment states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Although this refers to states, it also applies to the federal government. The government is obliged to provide equal rights; if the rights of a particular racial group are taken the reason for doing so must pass the highest scrutiny possible. Korematsu along with many other Japanese and Japanese Americans living on or near the West Coast of the United States were denied their rights as Americans and were sent to internment camps.
So far I feel like the ruling that was made wasn’t based upon what was morally right, but was based upon what the laws and regulations set previously had stated. I do believe that Korematsu violated Executive Order 9066, but I do not believe that the order was constitutional. It wasn’t constitutional because it singled out an entire race because of something their country had done. It singled them out to “protect America” but in reality all it did was alienate people who had nothing to do with the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Although both sides of the argument do have valid points that can sway the final decision, it will come down to how everything is presented in the trial.
Trial Ruling
The internment of Japanese and Japanese Americans in 1942 was done based upon racial prejudice. There was no justification for the sending the Japanese to the camps and on top of that it was unconstitutional. By sending the Japanese to the internment camps they were directly violating the fourth amendment which clearly states that police have no right to arrest or detain someone without reasonable suspicion of a crime that has been committed. The only crime committed by the Japanese was the fact that they were Japanese and their country had just attacked Pearl Harbor. Although it was stated that the division was put forth for the safety of both Japanese and the other Americans, there simply isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that they are protecting the Japanese.
Evidence was put forth during the trial stating that in an interview Japanese in America were 90%-98% loyal to the country. Even though it is unclear whether that is a percentage of people or a rough estimate of how much each individual is loyal, this is clearly directly supporting the fact that they were detained and put into the internment camps just simply based upon racial prejudice towards a country that had just attacked America.
It is true that it wasn’t just Japanese that were arrested; in fact it is the opposite. Both German and Italian people were also detained but only the Japanese were put into internment camps. This case is over the constitutionality of the internment camps and Executive Order 9066. Issued February 19, 1942, Executive Order 9066 did not specifically say anything about the Japanese. It wasn’t until Civilian Exclusion No. 34 that the Japanese were forced to go to relocation centers and from there to internment camps. The initial plan for these two orders was to detain Japanese until they were “suitable” to leave. This never happened.
I must concede that it is true that we were in a time of war and the law was written to protect, no matter what the constitution read. Previously disregarded the constitution in laws during times of war in order protect the country and it has worked, but in this instance there are no grounds for excluding an entire race because of their nationality.
Korematsu has been convicted of evading the law, which he is guilty of. That being said, these two orders were unconstitutional and thus, in a unanimous decision, we have ruled in favor of the defense.
The prosecution spoke very little about the order itself and focused on the Korematsu aspect of the case, while the defense took the lead and focused on the constitution and how it is unconstitutional to exclude someone based upon their race. This is, as stated before, a direct violation of the fourth amendment. Classifying someone because of their race and furthermore excluding them is based solely on racial prejudice and nothing more.
Evidence was put forth during the trial stating that in an interview Japanese in America were 90%-98% loyal to the country. Even though it is unclear whether that is a percentage of people or a rough estimate of how much each individual is loyal, this is clearly directly supporting the fact that they were detained and put into the internment camps just simply based upon racial prejudice towards a country that had just attacked America.
It is true that it wasn’t just Japanese that were arrested; in fact it is the opposite. Both German and Italian people were also detained but only the Japanese were put into internment camps. This case is over the constitutionality of the internment camps and Executive Order 9066. Issued February 19, 1942, Executive Order 9066 did not specifically say anything about the Japanese. It wasn’t until Civilian Exclusion No. 34 that the Japanese were forced to go to relocation centers and from there to internment camps. The initial plan for these two orders was to detain Japanese until they were “suitable” to leave. This never happened.
I must concede that it is true that we were in a time of war and the law was written to protect, no matter what the constitution read. Previously disregarded the constitution in laws during times of war in order protect the country and it has worked, but in this instance there are no grounds for excluding an entire race because of their nationality.
Korematsu has been convicted of evading the law, which he is guilty of. That being said, these two orders were unconstitutional and thus, in a unanimous decision, we have ruled in favor of the defense.
The prosecution spoke very little about the order itself and focused on the Korematsu aspect of the case, while the defense took the lead and focused on the constitution and how it is unconstitutional to exclude someone based upon their race. This is, as stated before, a direct violation of the fourth amendment. Classifying someone because of their race and furthermore excluding them is based solely on racial prejudice and nothing more.
Reflection
In this project we looked at Japanese internment and we determined whether it was constitutional or not. The final product of everything was to have a mock trial of the Korematsu v. U.S. Supreme Court case that took place in 1944. We started this process by first looking at historical documents based on Japanese internment and we had to evaluate them. After we did this we were assigned our specific roles for the trial. We had the decision between being a lawyer, witness, or a judge. the first role that I signed up for was being a judge and I think that that was a good decision. After this we started independent work to learn about the trial.
This project had its fair share of independent work, but this project was mainly focused around teamwork between the lawyers and the witnesses. Each student that was assigned to be a witness had to be two different witnesses, and for each witness they needed to get the case together with both the defense and prosecution lawyers. As a judge I had to prepare for the trial with my judges by reading historical documents and talking about them. After the trial we had to deliberate to come to a ruling over the case.
As a judge I didn't have to write as much as the witnesses and the lawyers, so neither of the two main pieces of writing that I worked on were made to make an impact on anyone. One of the first things I had to revise while writing was how I incorporated the all of the different laws into my pre-trial writing. The first time I wrote it they were put in awkwardly, but after I revised it I feel like it is more smooth and it helps describe why those specific laws impact the case in the way that they do. The second most important revision that I had to make was in my final court ruling. While I was writing it everything awkwardly worded and needed to be revised. I spent most of my time on my court ruling actually revising it, not just writing it in the first place.
This project was one of my most favorite projects that I have completed in this school over the past four years. I enjoyed this project because it was so different that any other project that I have completed in the past because everyone had a different role in the project. I liked that everything was divided into roles because that made the final case a surprise to everyone. As a judge this was nice because it made me pay more attention to the final case and it made it interesting to listen to. During the trial the most difficult thing for me as a judge was to make decisions on objections. It would be wise of anyone as a judge next year to learn about objections.
This project had its fair share of independent work, but this project was mainly focused around teamwork between the lawyers and the witnesses. Each student that was assigned to be a witness had to be two different witnesses, and for each witness they needed to get the case together with both the defense and prosecution lawyers. As a judge I had to prepare for the trial with my judges by reading historical documents and talking about them. After the trial we had to deliberate to come to a ruling over the case.
As a judge I didn't have to write as much as the witnesses and the lawyers, so neither of the two main pieces of writing that I worked on were made to make an impact on anyone. One of the first things I had to revise while writing was how I incorporated the all of the different laws into my pre-trial writing. The first time I wrote it they were put in awkwardly, but after I revised it I feel like it is more smooth and it helps describe why those specific laws impact the case in the way that they do. The second most important revision that I had to make was in my final court ruling. While I was writing it everything awkwardly worded and needed to be revised. I spent most of my time on my court ruling actually revising it, not just writing it in the first place.
This project was one of my most favorite projects that I have completed in this school over the past four years. I enjoyed this project because it was so different that any other project that I have completed in the past because everyone had a different role in the project. I liked that everything was divided into roles because that made the final case a surprise to everyone. As a judge this was nice because it made me pay more attention to the final case and it made it interesting to listen to. During the trial the most difficult thing for me as a judge was to make decisions on objections. It would be wise of anyone as a judge next year to learn about objections.