Andie Paschal Humanities January 10, 2014

Summary of the Case

Part A: Fred Korematsu was born on January 30, 1919 in Oakland, California. He was a Nisei, which means a member of the first generation of Japanese immigrants born in America. His parents were Japanese immigrants and owned a flower nursery in Oakland, California. He enjoyed American past times such as playing tennis, basketball, and football. Korematsu volunteered to serve in the armed forces, however, he was not granted permission to apply. Korematsu eventually became a skilled welder. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, and Korematsu and his family were ordered to relocate to Tanforan Assembly Center. Although Korematsus family relocated to Tanforan Assembly Center, he did not go with them. He had an Italian-American girlfriend and wanted to move to Nevada with her and escape the hectic hysteria caused from Pearl Harbor. Korematsus girlfriend did not want to leave her family, so Korematsu remained in Oakland and changed his name to Clyde Sarah. He underwent plastic surgery in order to camouflage his Japanese features. Korematsu was hoping to come across as someone with a Hawaiian/Spanish heritage. However, someone recognized Korematsu and turned him in. Korematsu was found guilty of violating Executive Order 9066 and was sentenced to 5 years probation. Korematsus lawyers took his case to the Supreme Court in attempt to try to challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066. However, six out of the three judges were pro-war relocation camps and Korematsu lost. In 1983, his case was reopened after concealed evidence was found. A new verdict was found, and Korematsu was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Throughout his life, Korematsu continued to fight for equal rights for people of all races. Part B: When Fred Korematsus case was taken to the Supreme Court, the prosecution lawyers tried to point out how it was necessary to intern people of Japanese Ancestry because it was difficult to determine who was loyal and who was disloyal to the United States. The following is an excerpt from Hugo Blacks case ruling. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.

The prosecution team also made note that Korematsu violated Executive Order 9066, and as stated he must be punished. . . . whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone prescribed, under the authority of an Executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War, or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the restrictions applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander, shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each offense. The defense team made an effort to point out that there was no way the U.S. could distinguish between who was loyal and who was disloyal to the United States. They also pointed out how the Japanese race was excluded. This is an excerpt taken from Justice Roberts opinion of the case, Korematsu vs. the United States. On the contrary, it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. Part C: There were many laws involved in the court case, Korematsu vs. the United States. The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments were all related to the court case. The 4th amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, the 5th amendment protects the right to due process of the law, the 6 th amendment allows individuals the right to a speedy and fair trial, and the 14 th amendment protects individuals from laws that infringe on individual liberties created by the states they live in. The leading question that this case revolved around was whether or not Executive Order 9066 and the Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 were constitutional or not? Executive Order 9066 was signed and issued by President FDR allowing the Secretary of War to prescribe military zones. Exclusion Order No. 34 stated that all people of Japanese Ancestry living in Military Zone 1 had to report to assembly centers. During the creation of these laws, strict scrutiny was used in order to tell whether or not the least restrictive means possible were used while solving the problem (creating these laws). Because of laws passed prior to the internment of Japanese Americans, it was difficult to determine whether or not Exclusion Order No. 34 and Executive Order 9066 were constitutional. For example, the Espionage Act of 1917

prohibited/s interference with the military and prevented the support of enemies during time of war. The Sedition Act of 1918 prohibited/s the public from displaying their opinions about actions being taken during wartime. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gave/gives the United States permission to remove dangerous aliens from the country, and the Alien Registration Act of 1940 prevented/s U.S. residents from overthrowing the government and also made non-citizens register with the government during times of war. Another significant law involved in the court case was the Writ of Habeus Corpus; this law allows individuals to know why they are being arrested. Lastly, a dominant question regarding the court case was whether or not President FDR misused his presidential powers? The case Korematsu vs. the United States is very similar to three other court cases. Schenck v. the U.S. was about whether or not posters posed a threat to the security of the U.S. The initial verdict was yes, words do pose a threat to security. However, eventually, the verdict was overturned. In the court case Hirabayashi vs. the U.S., the young, Japanese man involved believed Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 violated his constitutional rights. The judges who heard his case did not agree with him, however, the ruling for his case was changed as well. Lastly, in the case Yasui vs. the U.S., Mr. Yasui also challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066. Initially Mr. Yasui was found guilty of violating Executive Order 9066, however, the initial case ruling was also amended. The main difference between Yasui vs. the U.S and Hirabayashi vs. the U.S. were that the two young men involved in the cases did not directly violate Executive Order 9066; they only challenged the constitutionality of it. After reading about these court cases, it definitely sways my decision to support the defense team. Even though the initial verdicts of all of these cases were in favor of the government, all of the rulings were overruled in support of the individuals. Part D: Initially when I learned about the internment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, I thought it was horrible. I couldnt believe the U.S. would do something like that. However, what was even more shocking to me was the fact that when Korematsu brought his case to the Supreme Court, most of the judges believed the interment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast was beneficial to the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. However, even though that was the judges reason to confirm the governments actions, I believe that some of the judges were racist and that racism influenced their verdict more than the evidence presented. For example, justice Hugo Black was from the south and was a member of the KKK. I feel like someone who was a member of the KKK should not be a judge for a case involving sensitive decisions made based on race. I believe Korematsu did violate Civilian Exclusion Order 9066, however, I do not agree with the initial verdict of Korematsus case when brought to the

Supreme Court. I do not believe Executive Order 9066 was constitutional because it excluded the Japanese race. There were many other enemy aliens living in the U.S. at the time such as people of Italian and German descent. We were not only at war with Japan, but we were at war with other countries as well. Not only did Civilian Exclusion Order 9066 exclude people of Japanese ancestry, the government sent many legal U.S. citizens to the war relocation camps. Many people of Japanese Ancestry living in the U.S. had never even set foot in Japan, and had no ties whatsoever to Japan. The likelihood of Japanese Americans planning sabotage against the United States was highly unlikely.