Korematsu vs United States of America

Alexander L. Pinto

     The case of Korematsu v United States represents a permanent stain of America's morality and its dedication to the guidelines laid down in the Constitution. The case revolved around Executive order 9066 which was authorized by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in February of 1942. At the time America was involved in the Second World War, a two front global struggle in which the Allied powers (The United States of America, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the British Empire) were fighting against the Axis powers bent on global domination (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan). In order to minimize the effectiveness of  spies and saboteurs from disrupting the U.S. war machine and learning valuable intelligence that could tip the balance of the war, the U.S. government enacted executive order 9066. It stated that all Americans of axis decent or from the axis countries were eligible to be sent to internment camps in remote places in the United States. Using this, U.S. officials interred over: 120,000 Japanese Americans, 11,000 German Americans, and 3,000 Italian Americans. Fred Korematsu was one of thousands who were told in 1942 that they would be taken from their homes and placed in camps. However, instead of complying, he decided to disobey the order and became a fugitive from justice. Mr Korematsu was born in the California to Japanese Parents who had immigrated to the United States in 1905. He encountered racism throughout his life and when he tried to join the military in defense of his country due to stomach ulcers. He then trained to become a welder so he could contribute to the war effort on the homefront. He was fired from two jobs because he was a "Jap" and was soon told he was going to be interned. Instead of complying he decided to flee to Nevada and undergo plastic surgery on his eyes to remove the oriental look. It was unsuccessful and he was soon arrested. His claimed to be of Hawaiian and Mexican dissent was rejected and he was imprisoned. He was approached by a representative from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) who asked him to present his case as a test to the legality of internment. He agreed but just after he was granted bail, he was arrested again and sent to an internment camp in Utah. He was charged and convicted by a Federal court which said he was in violation of Public Law no. 503 which was a means to punish those who resisted Executive order 9066. While in the camp, he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals but they upheld the original courts verdict. From there he brought the case to the Supreme Court. They agreed to hear the case on March 27, 1944. 

    Several attempts such as this one had already been made to challenge the constitutionality of Executive order 9066. These include: Hirabayashi vs. United States and Yasui vs. United States. These cases concerned the legality of minorities to have curfews imposed upon them due to their ancestral ties and the current war being waged over seas. The Supreme Court ruled that so long as the United States was at war with what ever country they were descended from, it was legal for military and civil authorities to impose upon them a curfew. In the Korematsu case, the defendant argued that the internment of the Japanese Americans was a violation of their 5th Amendment rights "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."(1) An interesting and relevant fact that should be mentioned is that eight out of the nine Supreme Court justices presiding over this case had been nominated by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This gave the U.S. an unfair advantage as the President was also responsible for issuing Executive order 9066. The outcome was 6-3 in favor of internment. The court ruled that the case presented by Mr Korematsu was almost indistinguishable from that of Hirabayashi vs. U.S.. It rested on essentially the same principle: " deference to Congress and the military authorities, particularly in light of the uncertainty following Pearl Harbor." (2)  The decision of the case was recorded by one of the pro internment judges by the name of Hugo Black. He said "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 properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders — as inevitably it must — determined that they should have the power to do just this." (3) All of the agreeing judges denied any racial prejudice accusations. The dissenting judges, including the one Republican Judge who was not nominated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, decided that the internment of the Japanese Americans "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and that agreeing to the decision of the lower courts and order 9066, "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy" (4)  The tyrannies which is spoken of in the previous sentence is the racial and anti-semetic policies of Nazi Germany (at this point they did not know the full extent of the German Holocaust, the concentration camps were not discovered until 1945). However, the one Republican Judge who was not nominated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dissented for a different reason. He did not believe that military decisions in times of crisis should be allowed to be challenged by non military means. However, he believed that since the time of crisis was past, (i.e. Pearl Harbor) there should be no more grounds for internment. "A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. 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 sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial 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. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes." (5)

In 1980 Mr Korematsu challenged the decision by writ of Coram Nobis and won. He was supported by both Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. In 1998 Congress made a public apology and granted a compensation of 20,000$ to each surviving internee.

     I am mixed in my response to this case. While I agree that this is a direct violation of an individuals rights, I also believe that in times of extreme war it is necessary to surrender part of your freedom for the greater good. I am sure that many of those who were actually sent to the camps were indeed spies and saboteurs. The Japanese in particular had a wide network of agents spread out across the eastern hemisphere. Unfortunately there is no way to confirm this. The records are either still classified or it was never discovered that they were there with malicious intents. However, the internment of over 120, 000 American citizens is beyond the pail. It should not have happend however, the consequences of allowing saboteurs and spies to wander about in the U.S. is also a scary thought. In the year the executive order was enacted, the U.S. was in very real danger of loosing the war on the Pacific Front. If a well co-ordinated sabotage attack was executed by the Japanese on key West Coast facilities it could have given the U.S. war machine major setbacks which could have cost us the war. I must apologize, I cannot make a decision. If we did do the right thing we may have saved us the war and been able to defeat the Japanese. However, at what cost did it come? Was it worth winning the war if, through the methods we used became just like them? Finally, if we hadn't interred the Japanese and had lost the war, America would not exist. So, which is more important? America herself, or the morals it represents? There is no happy medium. Its between a rock and a hard place. And I am not sure in this case that there is a lesser of the two evils.  

Workes Cited:

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

(4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

(5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States