Case Background
DIRECTIONS
Read the Case
Background and
.H\4XHVWLRQ.
Then analyze the
Documents provided.
Finally, answer the
.H\4XHVWLRQ in a
well-organized essay
that incorporates
your interpretations
of the Documents
as well as your own
knowledge of history.
CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES
Equal protection
Due process
Inalienable rights
Tension between liberty and security, especially in times
of war, is as old as the republic itself. Should the text of
the Constitution be interpreted one way in peacetime and
another way in wartime, as suggested for a unanimous
&RXUW LQ WKH :RUOG :DU , HUD E\ -XVWLFH 2OLYHU :HQGHOO
Holmes in Schenck v. U.S " ´:KHQ D QDWLRQ LV
at war, many things that might be said in time of peace
are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will
QRW EH HQGXUHG VR ORQJ DV PHQ ÀJKW DQG WKDW QR &RXUW
could regard them as protected by any constitutional
ULJKWµ$IWHU-DSDQDWWDFNHG3HDUO+DUERURQ'HFHPEHU
WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV HQWHUHG :RUOG :DU ,, DQG IDFHG
once again the challenge of applying the Constitution’s
JXDUDQWHHV LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI ZDUWLPH %DVHG RQ DGYLFH
from the military that there was a real threat of Japanese
LQYDVLRQ RI WKH ZHVW FRDVW DV ZHOO DV D FUHGLEOH GDQJHU
RI-DSDQHVHHVSLRQDJHWKH86JRYHUQPHQWRUGHUHGWKH
UHORFDWLRQ DQG GHWHQWLRQ RI -DSDQHVH $PHULFDQV OLYLQJ LQ
that region. From April of 1942 until the end of the war
LQ 6HSWHPEHU RI SHUVRQV RI -DSDQHVH
DQFHVWU\PRVWRIWKHP86FLWL]HQVZHUHGHSULYHGRIWKHLU
liberty and held in detention camps far from their former
homes. They lost most of the property they had entrusted
WRJRYHUQPHQWDXWKRULWLHVEXWKDGQRZD\RIGRFXPHQWLQJ
their losses because they only had a few days’ notice to
dispose of their property before reporting to assembly
FHQWHUVIRUUHORFDWLRQ7KHVXUSULVHDWWDFNRQ3HDUO+DUERU
ZDVYHU\UHDODVZDVWKHIHDUHQJHQGHUHGE\LW+RZUHDO
was the threat of espionage?
THE PRESIDENCY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES
KOREMATSU V. U.S. (1944)
)DFHG ZLWK H[WHQVLYH TXHVWLRQLQJ RQ WKLV SRLQW E\ WKH
Supreme Court in oral argument, Solicitor General Charles
)DK\FRQYLQFHGDPDMRULW\RIWKH-XVWLFHVWKDWWKHGHWHQWLRQ
RI-DSDQHVH$PHULFDQVZDVMXVWLÀHGE\´PLOLWDU\QHFHVVLW\µ
177
TEACHING TIPS: KOREMATSU V. U.S.
LEARNING
OBJECTIVES
‡ Students
understand the
PDMRUHYHQWV
related to the
internment
of Japanese
Americans during
:RUOG:DU,,
‡ Students
understand
and apply
constitutional
principles at issue
in Korematsu v.
U.S.WRHYDOXDWH
the Supreme
Court’s ruling in
that case.
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
178
ACTIVITIES
1. 7RSUHSDUHVWXGHQWVIRUWKLVOHVVRQKDYHWKHPUHDGWKH
background essay, Handout A: Korematsu v. U.S., and
answer the questions.
2. /HDGVWXGHQWVWRGHYHORSDWLPHOLQHRQWKHERDUGWRVKRZ
WKHVLJQLÀFDQWHYHQWVGHVFULEHGLQWKHEDFNJURXQGHVVD\
3. $VN VWXGHQWV ´,I \RXU IDPLO\ KDG KRXUV WR GLVSRVH
of your home, car, and all other property before being
IRUFHGWRPRYHLQWRGLVWDQWWHPSRUDU\KRXVLQJZKLFKRI
\RXU LQDOLHQDEOH ULJKWV PLJKW EH LQ MHRSDUG\"µ 'LVFXVV
Internees lost liberty AND property. Internees were forced
to sell their businesses for terrible losses. For example,
5HSUHVHQWDWLYH5REHUW0DWVXLRI&DOLIRUQLDZDVPRQWKV
old when his family was interned. His family had just
48 hours to relocate. His father was forced to sell their
KRXVH LQ 6DFUDPHQWR IRU DQG VLPSO\ DEDQGRQ KLV
small produce business.
4. $VVLJQDSSURSULDWHGRFXPHQWVIRUVWXGHQWDQDO\VLV'LYLGH
WKHFODVVLQWRÀYHJURXSV$VVLJQHDFKJURXSWRVWXG\DQG
UHSRUWRQGRFXPHQWVDVIROORZVDocuments A, B, C;
Documents D, EDocuments F, HDocuments
G, IDocuments J, K. Conduct a Moot Court according
WRGLUHFWLRQVLQ$SSHQGL[S
$IWHU PRRW FRXUW DFWLYLW\ LQ ZKLFK VWXGHQWV KDYH
presented oral arguments and determined how they
would decide the case, then guide the class to consider
Documents L, M, and N. Compare students’ decisions to
Supreme Court’s majority and dissenting opinions.
6. Guide the class to read and discuss Document O: Letter
from President Bush to Internees (1991).
7. Guide the class to read and discuss additional documents,
The Issue Endures and Document P: Duty of Absolute
Candor: Katyal Blog Post (2011).
8. :UDSXSE\UHWXUQLQJWRWKHODVWTXHVWLRQDFFRPSDQ\LQJ
the Introductory Essay 6KRXOG WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ·V
meaning change during times of crisis?
See Appendix for additional Graphic Organizers.
EXTENSIONS
+DYHVWXGHQWVGLVFXVVWKHIROORZLQJ
‡ 7KHODWH6XSUHPH&RXUW&KLHI-XVWLFH:LOOLDP+5HKQTXLVWH[SORUHGWKHZDUWLPHSRZHUVRI
JRYHUQPHQWLQKLVERRN All the Laws But One-Civil Liberties in Wartime. He noted the
SDWWHUQWKURXJKRXWRXUKLVWRU\WKDWLQWLPHVRIFULVLVWKHJRYHUQPHQW·VSRZHUVDUHPDJQLÀHG
regardless of constitutional limits. In his conclusion he wrote, “An entirely separate and
important philosophical question is whether occasional presidential excesses and judicial
UHVWUDLQWLQZDUWLPHDUHGHVLUDEOHRUXQGHVLUDEOH,QRQHVHQVHWKLVTXHVWLRQLVYHU\ODUJHO\
academic. There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently
IURP/LQFROQ:LOVRQRU5RRVHYHOWRUWKDWIXWXUH-XVWLFHVRIWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWZLOOGHFLGH
questions differently than their predecessors.”
‡ 8VH Document P: Duty of Absolute Candor: Katyal Blog Post (2011) to discuss the
GLVFRYHU\ LQ WKH HDUO\ V RI GRFXPHQWV SURYLQJ WKDW WKH JRYHUQPHQW·V DWWRUQH\V KDG
IDLOHGWRSUHVHQWLQWKH6XSUHPH&RXUWHYLGHQFHWKDWPLJKWKDYHLQÁXHQFHGWKHLUUXOLQJLQ
the case. The Supreme Court majority referred to the necessity that judges defer to the
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKH([HFXWLYH%UDQFKDQGWKHPLOLWDU\GXULQJZDUWLPH+RZHYHUPHPRV
IURPWKH)%,DQGWKH2IÀFHRI1DYDO,QWHOOLJHQFHH[SOLFLWO\UHIXWLQJFODLPVRIHVSLRQDJHDQG
VDERWDJHE\-DSDQHVH$PHULFDQVQRWVKDUHGZLWKWKH&RXUW7KHGLVFRYHU\RIWKLVHYLGHQFH
VXJJHVWVWKDWWKHSROLF\RILQWHUQPHQWPD\KDYHEHHQODUJHO\PRWLYDWHGE\UDFLDOSUHMXGLFHDV
WKHGLVVHQWHUVLQWKH&RXUW·VRSLQLRQPDLQWDLQHG,IZHGLVFRYHULQWKHIXWXUHVRPHHYLGHQFH
of a well-concealed Japanese-American spy ring, how would that affect your opinion of this
case?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
179
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Equal protection
Due process
Inalienable rights
KEY QUESTION
Assess the Supreme Court’s decision in Korematsu v. U.S.
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
180
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
7KH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RQVWLWXWLRQ
7KH)LIWK$PHQGPHQW
Ex Parte Milligan
$'DWH:KLFK:LOO/LYHLQ,QIDP\
)UDQNOLQ'5RRVHYHOW·V,QIDP\6SHHFK
,QIRUPDWLRQ%XOOHWLQ1XPEHU
([HFXWLYH2UGHU)HEUXDU\
([HFXWLYH2UGHU0DUFK
Instructions to Japanese, April 1, 1942
Hirabayashi v. United States0DMRULW\2SLQLRQ
Memorandum, Biddle to FDR, December 30, 1943
Korematsu v. United States0DMRULW\2SLQLRQ
Korematsu v. U.S.'LVVHQWLQJ2SLQLRQ
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, December 18, 1944
*HRUJH+:%XVK/HWWHUIURP3UHVLGHQW%XVKWR,QWHUQHHV
'XW\RI$EVROXWH&DQGRU.DW\DO%ORJ3RVW
DOCUMENT A
The United States Constitution (1789), Article I, Section 9
«7KHSULYLOHJHRIWKHZULWRIhabeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
LQFDVHVRIUHEHOOLRQRULQYDVLRQWKHSXEOLFVDIHW\PD\UHTXLUHLW
1. What is “the writ of habeas corpus”? In what cases can it be
suspended?
DOCUMENT B
The Fifth Amendment (1791)
1RSHUVRQVKDOO«EHGHSULYHGRIOLIHOLEHUW\RUSURSHUW\ZLWKRXWGXHSURFHVVRI
law…
1. What types of rights does this amendment to the Constitution
protect? What is the relationship between them?
2. What must the government provide when it tries to deprive someone
of these rights?
Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
7KH&RQVWLWXWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLVDODZIRUUXOHUVDQGSHRSOHHTXDOO\LQ
ZDUDQGLQSHDFHDQGFRYHUVZLWKWKHVKLHOGRILWVSURWHFWLRQDOOFODVVHVRIPHQ
DWDOOWLPHVDQGXQGHUDOOFLUFXPVWDQFHV1RGRFWULQHLQYROYLQJPRUHSHUQLFLRXV
FRQVHTXHQFHVZDVHYHULQYHQWHGE\WKHZLWRIPDQWKDQWKDWDQ\RILWVSURYLVLRQV
FDQ EH VXVSHQGHG GXULQJ DQ\ RI WKH JUHDW H[LJHQFLHV RI JRYHUQPHQW 6XFK D
doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on
ZKLFKLWLVEDVHGLVIDOVHIRUWKHJRYHUQPHQWZLWKLQWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQKDVDOOWKH
SRZHUVJUDQWHGWRLWZKLFKDUHQHFHVVDU\WRSUHVHUYHLWVH[LVWHQFH«
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
1. This ruling, following the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil
War, held that civilians could not be tried in military tribunals as long
as civil courts were operational. How might this reasoning apply to
the Korematsu case?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
DOCUMENT C
181
DOCUMENT D
A Date Which Will Live in Infamy (1941)
Images courtesy
Library of Congress
Prints and
Photographs Division
(LC-USZ62-104778;
LC-USZ62-16555;
LC-USZ62-129811).
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
182
1. What impression do these images portray? How is that impression
related to public reaction to the decision to remove Japanese
Americans from their homes along the west coast?
DOCUMENT E
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Infamy Speech (1941)
December 8, 1941
<HVWHUGD\'HFHPEHUDGDWHZKLFKZLOOOLYHLQLQIDP\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
RI$PHULFDZDVVXGGHQO\DQGGHOLEHUDWHO\DWWDFNHGE\QDYDODQGDLUIRUFHVRIWKH
Empire of Japan.…
,WZLOOEHUHFRUGHGWKDWWKHGLVWDQFHRI+DZDLLIURP-DSDQPDNHVLWREYLRXVWKDW
WKHDWWDFNZDVGHOLEHUDWHO\SODQQHGPDQ\GD\VRUHYHQZHHNVDJR'XULQJWKH
LQWHUYHQLQJWLPHWKH-DSDQHVH*RYHUQPHQWKDVGHOLEHUDWHO\VRXJKWWRGHFHLYH
WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV E\ IDOVH VWDWHPHQWV DQG H[SUHVVLRQV RI KRSH IRU FRQWLQXHG
peace. …
$V&RPPDQGHULQ&KLHIRIWKH$UP\DQG1DY\,KDYHGLUHFWHGWKDWDOOPHDVXUHV
be taken for our defense. …
,EHOLHYH,LQWHUSUHWWKHZLOORIWKH&RQJUHVVDQGRIWKHSHRSOHZKHQ,DVVHUWWKDW
ZHZLOOQRWRQO\GHIHQGRXUVHOYHVWRWKHXWWHUPRVWEXWZLOOPDNHYHU\FHUWDLQWKDW
WKLVIRUPRIWUHDFKHU\VKDOOQHYHUHQGDQJHUXVDJDLQ
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and
RXULQWHUHVWVDUHLQJUDYHGDQJHU
,DVNWKDWWKH&RQJUHVVGHFODUHWKDWVLQFHWKHXQSURYRNHGDQGGDVWDUGO\DWWDFN
E\-DSDQRQ6XQGD\'HFHPEHUVHYHQWKDVWDWHRIZDUKDVH[LVWHGEHWZHHQWKH
8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGWKH-DSDQHVH(PSLUH
1. What is infamy?
3. Why did the President maintain that a state of war “has [already]
existed”?
4. According to the Constitution, which branch of government has the
power to declare war? (See the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 11.)
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
2. Note the descriptive terms that President Roosevelt used in this
speech on the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. What is
the overall effect of this speech?
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
183
DOCUMENT F
Information Bulletin Number 6 (1942, emphasis original)
CONFIDENTIAL
,1)250$7,21%8//(7,1
180%(5
G-2 SECTION
*(1(5$/+($'48$57(5686$50<
$UP\:DU&ROOHJH
:DVKLQJWRQ'&
January 21, 1942
JAPANESE ESPIONAGE
6. Conclusions. -a. It may be expected that Japanese diplomatic and consular communications
will be replaced now by using the diplomatic and consular organization of an
DOOHJHGO\ QHXWUDO SRZHU LGHQWLÀHG ZLWK WKH $[LV 7KH\ PD\ DOVR XVH RIÀFLDOV RI
RWKHUQHXWUDOFRXQWULHVZKRPWKH\KDYHVXEYHUWHG
E 7KHLU HVSLRQDJH QHW FRQWDLQLQJ -DSDQHVH DOLHQV ÀUVW DQG VHFRQG
generation Japanese and other nationals is now thoroughly organized and
working underground.
c. In addition to their communications net through neutral diplomats, they may
EHH[SHFWHGWRKDYHWKHLURZQunderground communication net.
G([WHQVLYHXVHRI2FFLGHQWDOVVXFKDV$[LVQDWLRQDOVQHXWUDOQDWLRQDOVDQG
subverted Americans, is to be expected.
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
184
VLJQHG
3052%,1(77
Lieut. Colonel, G.S.C.,
Ass’t Chief of Staff, G-2.
1. 2IZKDWGDQJHUVGRHVWKLVFRQÀGHQWLDOPHPRZDUQ"
2. How long after the Pearl Harbor attack was this memo written?
DOCUMENT G
Executive Order 9066, February 19, 1942
«WKH6HFUHWDU\RI:DUDQGWKH0LOLWDU\&RPPDQGHUVZKRPKHPD\IURPWLPHWR
WLPHGHVLJQDWHZKHQHYHUKHRUDQ\GHVLJQDWHG&RPPDQGHUGHHPVVXFKDFWLRQV
necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such
extent as he or the appropriate Military Commanders may determine, from which
any or all persons may be excluded, and with such respect to which, the right of
DQ\SHUVRQWRHQWHUUHPDLQLQRUOHDYHVKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRZKDWHYHUUHVWULFWLRQV
WKH 6HFWDU\ RI :DU RU WKH DSSURSULDWH 0LOLWDU\ &RPPDQGHU PD\ LPSRVH LQ KLV
discretion…
1. What does this executive order authorize the Secretary of War and his
military commanders to do?
DOCUMENT H
Executive Order 9102, March 18, 1942
%\YLUWXHRIWKHDXWKRULW\YHVWHGLQPHE\WKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDQGVWDWXWHVRIWKH
8QLWHG6WDWHVDV3UHVLGHQWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG&RPPDQGHULQ&KLHIRIWKH
$UP\DQG1DY\DQGLQRUGHUWRSURYLGHIRUWKHUHPRYDOIURPGHVLJQDWHGDUHDV
RISHUVRQVZKRVHUHPRYDOLVQHFHVVDU\LQWKHLQWHUHVWVRIQDWLRQDOVHFXULW\LWLV
RUGHUHGDVIROORZV
7KH'LUHFWRURIWKH:DU5HORFDWLRQ$XWKRULW\LVDXWKRUL]HGDQGGLUHFWHGWR
IRUPXODWHDQGHIIHFWXDWHDSURJUDPIRUWKHUHPRYDOIURPWKHDUHDVGHVLJQDWHG
IURP WLPH WR WLPH E\ WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI :DU RU DSSURSULDWH PLOLWDU\ FRPPDQGHU
XQGHUWKHDXWKRULW\RI([HFXWLYH2UGHU1RRI)HEUXDU\RIWKH
SHUVRQVRUFODVVHVRISHUVRQVGHVLJQDWHGXQGHUVXFK([HFXWLYH2UGHUDQGIRU
WKHLUUHORFDWLRQPDLQWHQDQFHDQGVXSHUYLVLRQ«
1. How is Executive Order 9102 different from Executive Order 9066?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
7KHUH LV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH 2IÀFH IRU (PHUJHQF\ 0DQDJHPHQW RI WKH
([HFXWLYH 2IÀFH RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW WKH :DU 5HORFDWLRQ $XWKRULW\ DW WKH KHDG RI
ZKLFKVKDOOEHD'LUHFWRUDSSRLQWHGE\DQGUHVSRQVLEOHWRWKH3UHVLGHQW
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
185
DOCUMENT I
Instructions to Japanese, April 1, 1942
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
186
Image courtesy the National Archives and Records Administration (Records
RIWKH:DU5HORFDWLRQ$XWKRULW\$5&LGHQWLÀHU
1. To whom are these instructions directed? On what date was the
announcement posted?
2. What are they instructed to do?
3. What assistance is promised to them?
4. What part(s) of these instructions would be most frightening/
unpleasant to you? Why? To what extent would you trust the Wartime
Civil Control Administration to safeguard any property left behind in
their care?
DOCUMENT J
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
3XUVXDQWWR([HFXWLYH2UGHU1R«WKHPLOLWDU\FRPPDQGHURIWKH:HVWHUQ
Defense Command promulgated an order requiring … that all persons of Japanese
ancestry within a designated military area “be within their place of residence
EHWZHHQWKHKRXUVRISPDQGDPµ$SSHOODQWD8QLWHG6WDWHVFLWL]HQRI
-DSDQHVHDQFHVWU\ZDVFRQYLFWHGLQWKHIHGHUDO'LVWULFW&RXUWIRUYLRODWLRQRIWKLV
curfew order.
Held:
,WZDVZLWKLQWKHFRQVWLWXWLRQDODXWKRULW\RI&RQJUHVVDQGWKH([HFXWLYHDFWLQJ
together, to prescribe this curfew order as an emergency war measure.
In the light of all the facts and circumstances, there was substantial basis for
the conclusion, in which Congress and the military commander united, that the
FXUIHZ DV DSSOLHG ZDV D SURWHFWLYH PHDVXUH QHFHVVDU\ WR PHHW WKH WKUHDW RI
sabotage and espionage which would substantially affect the war effort and
ZKLFKPLJKWUHDVRQDEO\EHH[SHFWHGWRDLGDWKUHDWHQHGHQHP\LQYDVLRQ
The Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, and it restrains
only such discriminatory legislation by Congress as amounts to a denial of due
process.
1. Of what act was Hirabayashi convicted?
2. Why did the Court hold that the curfew was reasonable?
3. In your opinion, to what extent did persons of Japanese ancestry
receive due process?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
The fact … that attack on our shores was threatened by Japan, rather than another
HQHP\SRZHUVHW>-DSDQHVH@FLWL]HQVDSDUWIURPRWKHUVZKRKDYHQRSDUWLFXODU
DVVRFLDWLRQVZLWK-DSDQ:HFDQQRWFORVHRXUH\HVWRWKHIDFWGHPRQVWUDWHG
E\H[SHULHQFHWKDWLQWLPHRIZDUUHVLGHQWVKDYLQJHWKQLFDIÀOLDWLRQVZLWKDQ
LQYDGLQJ HQHP\ PD\ EH D JUHDWHU VRXUFH RI GDQJHU WKDQ WKRVH RI D GLIIHUHQW
ancestry.
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
187
DOCUMENT K
Memorandum, Biddle to FDR, December 30, 1943
$WWRUQH\*HQHUDO)UDQFLV%LGGOH/HWWHUWR3UHVLGHQW5RRVHYHOW
«7KHLPSRUWDQWWKLQJLVWRVHFXUHWKHUHDEVRUSWLRQRIDERXW-DSDQHVH
RIZKRPWZRWKLUGVDUHFLWL]HQVDQGZKRJLYHHYHU\LQGLFDWLRQRIEHLQJOR\DOWR
WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV LQWR QRUPDO $PHULFDQ OLIH 7KH SUHVHQW SUDFWLFH RI NHHSLQJ
loyal American citizens in concentration camps on the basis of race for longer
than is absolutely necessary is dangerous and repugnant to the principles of our
*RYHUQPHQW,WLVDOVRQHFHVVDU\WRDFWQRZVRWKDWWKHDJLWDWLRQDJDLQVWWKHVH
citizens does not continue after the war.
1. What practice did Biddle describe as “dangerous and repugnant to
the principles of our Government”?
2. To what principles do you think he was referring in this warning?
3. Why did he write that it was important to act immediately “to secure
the reabsorption [of loyal Japanese people] into normal American
life”?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
188
DOCUMENT L
MAJORITY OPINION
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable
WRFRQFOXGHWKDWLWZDVEH\RQGWKHZDUSRZHURI&RQJUHVVDQGWKH([HFXWLYHWR
H[FOXGHWKRVHRI-DSDQHVHDQFHVWU\IURPWKH:HVW&RDVWZDUDUHDDWWKHWLPH
they did.…
&LWL]HQVKLSKDVLWVUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDVZHOODVLWVSULYLOHJHVDQGLQWLPHRIZDU
WKHEXUGHQLVDOZD\VKHDYLHU&RPSXOVRU\H[FOXVLRQRIODUJHJURXSVRIFLWL]HQV
from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is
LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWKRXUEDVLFJRYHUQPHQWDOLQVWLWXWLRQV%XWZKHQXQGHUFRQGLWLRQV
of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to
protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.…
$IÀUPHG
2. :KDWZHUHWKH´UHDOPLOLWDU\GDQJHUVµWKDWMXVWLÀHGWKHH[FOXVLRQ
order? (See paragraph 3)
3. :K\GR\RXWKLQNWKLV-XVWLFHFODULÀHGWKHSRLQWUHJDUGLQJUDFLDO
prejudice?
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
1. According to the majority opinion, why was the exclusion order within
the power of Congress?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a
FRQFHQWUDWLRQFDPSVROHO\EHFDXVHRIKLVDQFHVWU\ZLWKRXWHYLGHQFHRULQTXLU\
FRQFHUQLQJKLVOR\DOW\DQGJRRGGLVSRVLWLRQWRZDUGVWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV2XUWDVN
ZRXOGEHVLPSOHRXUGXW\FOHDUZHUHWKLVDFDVHLQYROYLQJWKHLPSULVRQPHQWRI
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
XQMXVWLÀDEOH WR FDOO WKHP FRQFHQWUDWLRQ FDPSV ZLWK DOO WKH XJO\ FRQQRWDWLRQV
WKDWWHUPLPSOLHVZHDUHGHDOLQJVSHFLÀFDOO\ZLWKQRWKLQJEXWDQH[FOXVLRQRUGHU
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
SURSHUO\ FRQVWLWXWHG PLOLWDU\ DXWKRULWLHV IHDUHG DQ LQYDVLRQ RI RXU :HVW &RDVW
and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided
that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese
DQFHVWU\EHVHJUHJDWHGIURPWKH:HVW&RDVWWHPSRUDULO\DQGÀQDOO\EHFDXVH
&RQJUHVVUHSRVLQJLWVFRQÀGHQFHLQWKLVWLPHRIZDULQRXUPLOLWDU\OHDGHUVDV
LQHYLWDEO\LWPXVWGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKH\VKRXOGKDYHWKHSRZHUWRGRMXVWWKLV
7KHUH ZDV HYLGHQFH RI GLVOR\DOW\ RQ WKH SDUW RI VRPH WKH PLOLWDU\ DXWKRULWLHV
FRQVLGHUHGWKDWWKHQHHGIRUDFWLRQZDVJUHDWDQGWLPHZDVVKRUW:HFDQQRW
E\DYDLOLQJRXUVHOYHVRIWKHFDOPSHUVSHFWLYHRIKLQGVLJKWQRZVD\WKDWDWWKDW
WLPHWKHVHDFWLRQVZHUHXQMXVWLÀHG
189
DOCUMENT M
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), Dissenting Opinion
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
WR OLEHUW\ WKDQ WKH SURPXOJDWLRQ RI WKH RUGHU LWVHOI $ PLOLWDU\ RUGHU KRZHYHU
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
VDQFWLRQVVXFKDQRUGHUWKH&RXUWIRUDOOWLPHKDVYDOLGDWHGWKHSULQFLSOHRIUDFLDO
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.…
1. Why does this dissenting justice object to the majority’s ruling?
2. Put the following phrase in your own words: “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.”
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
190
DOCUMENT N
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, December 18, 1944
0LWVX\H(QGR«LVDQ$PHULFDQFLWL]HQRI-DSDQHVHDQFHVWU\6KHZDVHYDFXDWHG
from Sacramento, California, in 1942, pursuant to certain military orders … and
ZDVUHPRYHGWRWKH7XOH/DNH:DU5HORFDWLRQ&HQWHUORFDWHGDW1HZHOO0RGRF
County, California.
Her petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleges that she is a loyal and law-abiding
FLWL]HQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWKDWQRFKDUJHKDVEHHQPDGHDJDLQVWKHUWKDWVKH
LVEHLQJXQODZIXOO\GHWDLQHGDQGWKDWVKHLVFRQÀQHGLQWKH5HORFDWLRQ&HQWHU
under armed guard and held there against her will.
,WLVFRQFHGHGE\WKH'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFHDQGE\WKH:DU5HORFDWLRQ$XWKRULW\
that appellant is a loyal and law-abiding citizen. They make no claim that she is
GHWDLQHGRQDQ\FKDUJHRUWKDWVKHLVHYHQVXVSHFWHGRIGLVOR\DOW\
The authority to detain a citizen or to grant him a conditional release as protection
against espionage or sabotage is exhausted at least when his loyalty is conceded.
If we held that the authority to detain continued thereafter, we would transform
an espionage or sabotage measure into something else. That was not done by
([HFXWLYH2UGHU1RRUE\WKH$FWRI0DUFKZKLFKUDWLÀHGLW«7R
UHDGWKHPWKDWEURDGO\ZRXOGEHWRDVVXPHWKDWWKH&RQJUHVVDQGWKH3UHVLGHQW
intended that this discriminatory action should be taken against these people
ZKROO\RQDFFRXQWRIWKHLUDQFHVWU\HYHQWKRXJKWKHJRYHUQPHQWFRQFHGHGWKHLU
OR\DOW\WRWKLVFRXQWU\:HFDQQRWPDNHVXFKDQDVVXPSWLRQ«
0LWVX\H (QGR LV HQWLWOHG WR DQ XQFRQGLWLRQDO UHOHDVH E\ WKH :DU 5HORFDWLRQ
Authority.
1. What is the “serious constitutional question” in Endo’s case,
according to this Justice’s reasoning? What did he say was the clear
answer to that question?
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
2. This decision was announced on the same day as Korematsu v. U.S.,
December 18, 1944. Compare and contrast the two cases. Why do
you think the Court’s majority came to such different conclusions in
these two related cases?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
The court is squarely faced with a serious constitutional question,-whether [her]
GHWHQWLRQYLRODWHGWKHJXDUDQWHHVRIWKH%LOORI5LJKWVRIWKHIHGHUDO&RQVWLWXWLRQ
and especially the guarantee of due process of law. There can be but one answer
WRWKDWTXHVWLRQ$QDGPLWWHGO\OR\DOFLWL]HQKDVEHHQGHSULYHGRIKHUOLEHUW\IRUD
SHULRGRI\HDUV8QGHUWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQVKHVKRXOGEHIUHHWRFRPHDQGJRDVVKH
SOHDVHV,QVWHDGKHUOLEHUW\RIPRWLRQDQGRWKHULQQRFHQWDFWLYLWLHVKDYHEHHQ
prohibited and conditioned. She should be discharged.
191
DOCUMENT O
George H. W. Bush, Letter from President Bush to Internees (1991)
7+(:+,7(+286(
:$6+,1*721
A monetary sum and words alone
cannot restore lost years or erase
painful memories; neither can they
IXOO\FRQYH\RXU1DWLRQ·VUHVROYHWR
rectify injustice and to uphold the
ULJKWVRILQGLYLGXDOV:HFDQQHYHU
fully right the wrongs of the past.
But we can take a clear stand for
justice and recognize that serious
injustices were done to Japanese
$PHULFDQVGXULQJ:RUOG:DU,,
In enacting a law calling for
restitution and offering a sincere
apology, your fellow Americans
KDYHLQDYHU\UHDOVHQVHUHQHZHG
their traditional commitment to the
ideals of freedom, equality, and
MXVWLFH <RX DQG \RXU IDPLO\ KDYH
our best wishes for the future.
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
192
Sincerely,
George Bush
George H. W. Bush, LETTER FROM PRESIDENT
BUSH TO INTERNEES (1991). Courtesy of California
State University—Sacramento, the Department of
Special Collections and University Archives.
1. Living survivors of internment camps received these letters
along with $20,000 as partial restitution for lost property. What
constitutional ideals did President Bush mention in his letter?
2. Where did those ideals come from?
3. To what extent do you think the United States lived up to those ideals
with respect to the events and aftermath of Korematsu v. U.S.?
DOCUMENT P
Duty of Absolute Candor: Katyal Blog Post (2011)
Background: In 1980, President Jimmy Carter ordered a special investigation
of the facts regarding the relocation and detention of Japanese Americans
during World War II. The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment
of Civilians issued its report in 1983, concluding that the decision to remove
Japanese Americans from the west coast had been based on “race prejudice,
war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” (Report of the Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians)
Confession of Error: The Solicitor General’s Mistakes During the JapaneseAmerican Internment Cases, by the Department of Justice, May 20, 2011
Neal Katyal, Acting Solicitor General of the United States.
7KH6ROLFLWRU*HQHUDOLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRURYHUVHHLQJDSSHOODWHOLWLJDWLRQRQ
EHKDOIRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGZLWKUHSUHVHQWLQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQWKH
6XSUHPH&RXUW7KHUHDUHVHYHUDOWHUULÀFDFFRXQWVRIWKHUROHVWKDW6ROLFLWRUV
*HQHUDOKDYHSOD\HGWKURXJKRXWKLVWRU\LQDGYDQFLQJFLYLOULJKWV%XWLWLVDOVR
LPSRUWDQWWRUHPHPEHUWKHPLVWDNHV2QHHSLVRGHRISDUWLFXODUUHOHYDQFH
WR $$3, +HULWDJH 0RQWK LV WKH 6ROLFLWRU *HQHUDO·V GHIHQVH RI WKH IRUFHG
UHORFDWLRQDQGLQWHUQPHQWRI-DSDQHVH$PHULFDQVGXULQJ:RUOG:DU,,«
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
7KH6XSUHPH&RXUWXSKHOG+LUDED\DVKL·VDQG.RUHPDWVX·VFRQYLFWLRQV$QG
LWWRRNQHDUO\DKDOIFHQWXU\IRUFRXUWVWRRYHUWXUQWKHVHGHFLVLRQV2QHFRXUW
decision in the 1980s that did so highlighted the role played by the Solicitor
*HQHUDO HPSKDVL]LQJ WKDW WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW JDYH ´VSHFLDO FUHGHQFHµ WR
the Solicitor General’s representations. The court thought it unlikely that the
6XSUHPH &RXUW ZRXOG KDYH UXOHG WKH VDPH ZD\ KDG WKH 6ROLFLWRU *HQHUDO
H[KLELWHGFRPSOHWHFDQGRU<HWWKRVHGHFLVLRQVVWLOOVWDQGWRGD\DVDUHPLQGHU
of the mistakes of that era.
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
By the time the cases of Gordon Hirabayashi and Fred Korematsu reached the
Supreme Court, the Solicitor General had learned of a key intelligence report
that undermined the rationale behind the internment. The Ringle Report,
IURPWKH2IÀFHRI1DYDO,QWHOOLJHQFHIRXQGWKDWRQO\DVPDOOSHUFHQWDJHRI
Japanese Americans posed a potential security threat, and that the most
dangerous were already known or in custody. But the Solicitor General did not
inform the Court of the report, despite warnings from Department of Justice
attorneys that failing to alert the Court “might approximate the suppression
RI HYLGHQFHµ ,QVWHDG KH DUJXHG WKDW LW ZDV LPSRVVLEOH WR VHJUHJDWH OR\DO
Japanese Americans from disloyal ones. Nor did he inform the Court that a
key set of allegations used to justify the internment, that Japanese Americans
were using radio transmitters to communicate with enemy submarines off the
:HVW&RDVWKDGEHHQGLVFUHGLWHGE\WKH)%,DQG)&&$QGWRPDNHPDWWHUV
worse, he relied on gross generalizations about Japanese Americans, such
DVWKDWWKH\ZHUHGLVOR\DODQGPRWLYDWHGE\´UDFLDOVROLGDULW\µ
193
7RGD\RXU2IÀFHWDNHVWKLVKLVWRU\DVDQLPSRUWDQWUHPLQGHUWKDWWKH´VSHFLDO
credence” the Solicitor General enjoys before the Supreme Court requires
great responsibility and a duty of absolute candor in our representations
WRWKH&RXUW2QO\WKHQFDQZHIXOÀOORXUUHVSRQVLELOLW\WRGHIHQGWKH8QLWHG
States and its Constitution, and to protect the rights of all Americans.
Source: http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346
1. Based on this document, to what extent do you believe the relocation
and detention of Japanese Americans was based on “military
necessity?”
2. Restate the last paragraph of Acting Solicitor General Katyal’s 2011
blog post in your own words. To what extent do you believe that
Solicitor General Fahy in 1944 carried out his “great responsibility
and duty of absolute candor?”
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
194
THE
ENDURES
National Defense Authorization Act (2012)
Subtitle D — Counterterrorism
6(& $)),50$7,21 2) $87+25,7< 2) 7+( $50(' )25&(6 2)
7+( 81,7(' 67$7(6 72 '(7$,1 &29(5(' 3(56216 38568$17 72 7+(
$87+25,=$7,21)2586(2)0,/,7$5<)25&(
D,1*(1(5$/³&RQJUHVVDIÀUPVWKDWWKHDXWKRULW\RIWKH3UHVLGHQWWRXVH
DOO QHFHVVDU\ DQG DSSURSULDWH IRUFH SXUVXDQW WR WKH $XWKRUL]DWLRQ IRU 8VH RI
0LOLWDU\)RUFHLQFOXGHVWKHDXWKRULW\IRUWKH$UPHG)RUFHVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVWR
GHWDLQFRYHUHGSHUVRQVSHQGLQJGLVSRVLWLRQXQGHUWKHODZRIZDU
E&29(5('3(56216³$FRYHUHGSHUVRQXQGHUWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQ\SHUVRQ
DVIROORZV
$SHUVRQZKRSODQQHGDXWKRUL]HGFRPPLWWHGRUDLGHGWKHWHUURULVWDWWDFNV
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those
attacks.
F',6326,7,2181'(5/$:2):$5³7KHGLVSRVLWLRQRIDSHUVRQXQGHUWKHODZ
RIZDUDVGHVFULEHGLQVXEVHFWLRQDPD\LQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
'HWHQWLRQXQGHUWKHODZRIZDUZLWKRXWWULDOXQWLOWKHHQGRIWKHKRVWLOLWLHV
DXWKRUL]HGE\WKH$XWKRUL]DWLRQIRU8VHRI0LOLWDU\)RUFH«
'HWDLQHH DFFHVV WR PLOLWDU\ RU FLYLOLDQ OHJDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RU ERWK LQFOXGLQJ
any limitations on such access and the manner in which any applicable legal
SULYLOHJHVZLOOEHEDODQFHGZLWKQDWLRQDOVHFXULW\FRQVLGHUDWLRQV
1. According to this law, who are “covered persons”?
2. What actions against covered persons are authorized by this law?
KOREMATSU V. U.S.
3. To what extent does this law permit covered persons access to legal
representation?
©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE
$SHUVRQZKRZDVDSDUWRIRUVXEVWDQWLDOO\VXSSRUWHGDO4DHGDWKH7DOLEDQ
RUDVVRFLDWHGIRUFHVWKDWDUHHQJDJHGLQKRVWLOLWLHVDJDLQVWWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRU
its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act
or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
195