What was the result of the majority decision in Korematsu v. United States 1944 )? Quizlet?

Thirty years ago next month, justice delayed finally arrived for a pioneer of racial equality, Fred Korematsu.  The most famous challenger of the Japanese-American internment had his conviction overturned as a result of information showing the government had withheld vital evidence from the both the Supreme Court and Mr. Korematsu’s defense team, led by CCE founder Charles Horsky.

Fred Korematsu was an American citizen of Japanese descent, living in California in 1942 when Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 was promulgated by the War Department, ordering all persons of Japanese descent in California to report to relocation camps.  He refused, and was arrested and convicted under a statute which created criminal sanctions for civilians who refused military orders.  The ACLU took on his case, which reached the Supreme Court in 1944.  In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld Korematsu’s conviction.  In addition to its historical significance, the case had great legal impact because it was the first time the Court created a separate standard of review for a law utilizing a suspect classification, stating that laws which discriminate on the basis of race “are immediately suspect” and must be subjected to “the most rigid scrutiny.”  In addition, the dissent of Justice Murphy is still considered to be one of the strongest denunciations of racism to come from the Court in the 20th Century.

Despite losing his case, history vindicated Mr. Korematsu.  In 1983, as a result of evidence that the Solicitor General suppressed reports showing that the War Department exaggerated the threat posed by the Japanese population, a writ of coram nobis was granted, overturning Korematsu’s conviction.  Mr. Horsky later said that he also felt justified by the writ, since he had doubted the government’s evidence and had always been troubled about losing Korematsu’s case.

The spirit of justice and civic engagement that led Charles Horsky to fight for Fred Korematsu later led him to fight for the interests of the District, and eventually to create CCE.  CCE was recently given access to Mr. Horsky’s private library by his daughter Maggie Nunez, and his firm, Covington & Burling LLP.  CCE thanks both Ms. Nunez for allowing CCE access to her father’s books, and Covington & Burling for their assistance and their continued involvement on our board.

Annotation

Primary Holding

Although strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard for policies that distinguish people based on race, an executive order interning American citizens of Japanese descent and removing many of their constitutional protections passed this standard. This decision has been largely discredited and repudiated.

Facts

As part of the response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during the Second World War, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor, and it was implemented three months later by Civilian Restrictive Order No. 1, 8 Fed. Reg. 982 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. These orders applied to all Japanese-Americans in the U.S., whether or not they were suspected of sabotage or other conduct detrimental to the war effort.

A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because habeas corpus had not been suspended, and his right to libery was being infringed by military action without due process of law.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction, based on deference to the executive branch during wartime, and he appealed.

Opinions

Majority

• Hugo Lafayette Black (Author)
• Harlan Fiske Stone
• Stanley Forman Reed
• William Orville Douglas
• Wiley Blount Rutledge

Black and the Justices who joined his opinion felt that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from sabotage and invasion. They relied heavily on a 1941 decision, Hirabayashi v. U.S., which addressed similar issues. Black argued that the validation of the military's decision by Congress merited even more deference.

Concurrence

• Felix Frankfurter (Author)

While it relied on a few different precedents from the majority's reasoning, Frankfurter's concurrence was based on the same logic of deference to military authorities in wartime.

Dissent

• Frank Murphy (Author)

This dissent argued that the Executive Order and the policies implementing it were racist in nature. It contrasted them with the more lenient treatment of German-Americans and Italian-Americans, who also had connections to nations with which the U.S. was simultaneously at war.

Dissent

• Robert Houghwout Jackson (Author)

Justice Jackson took a more measured approach than Murphy, agreeing with the majority insofar as the additional deference owed to the military during wartime. However, he argued that this deference was not a blank check, and that courts still could overrule actions by the military that were unconstitutional. Jackson feared that this decision would create a dangerous precedent for future national emergencies.

Dissent

• Owen Josephus Roberts (Author)

Roberts had assisted a commission that investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor and was critical of the conduct of the U.S. military during that process. This experience may have contributed to his dissent, which was closer in reasoning to Murphy than Jackson.

Case Commentary

This decision is not one of the Court's proudest moments and is widely recognized now as a mistake, driven by the panic after the Pearl Harbor attack. The U.S. government provided compensation to people affected by the deportation decades later. However, from a legal perspective, the decision did delineate the strict scrutiny standard of review that later played a role in combating discrimination.

What was the result of Korematsu v. United States quizlet?

What was the outcome of this famous Supreme Court case

What 1944 Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States ruling was later declared unconstitutional?