M6

This Executive Order No. 9102 created the War Relocation Authority which gave the US civilian agency the power to relocate Japanese Americans during World War II (Roosevelt, 1942). The executive order gave authorization to the United States Army to, “…remove all persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and imprison them without due process of law” (Nation Park Service, 2020). In the EO 9102, Franklin Roosevelt stated that “…removal is necessary in the interests of national security” (Roosevelt, 1942).

To add, Executive Order No. 9066 was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt (Roosevelt, 1941). This order allowed the Secretary of War to designate certain areas of land as military zones (Roosevelt, 1941). These military zones provided the space to build internment camps (Roosevelt, 1941).

Supreme Court Case Korematsu vs The United States surrounded the legality of the Japanese Internment camps, specifically, the legality of Executive Order 9066 (United States, 1944). Japanese American Fred Korematsu did not comply with Executive Order 9066 and as a result, was arrested (United States,1944). His parents were naturalized immigrants and Fred himself was born in California (United States, 1944). Fred Korematsu went to the extent of having plastic surgery to alter his eye shape in hopes of reducing prejudice (United States, 1944). Fred changed his name to Clyde Sarah and claimed he was of Spanish and Hawaiian ancestry, even prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor (United States, 1944). His refusal to leave his job, his parents’ business, his home, and everything he has known to be forcibly relocated to a prison camp, would bring about one of the most important Supreme Court cases in the United States (United States, 1944).

Six months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Korematsu was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation after he did not report to a relocation center (United States, 1944). He protested this arrest because he argued that it was unconstitutional to intern him and therefore, a violation of his rights as an American (United States, 1944). After Mr. Korematsu was arrested, he appealed his case up until it reached the Supreme Court of the United States (United States, 1944). Mr. Korematsu legal counsel was Wayne M. Collins, a civil rights attorney (NCC, 2021). Collins argued that government entities, such as the military, did not have the power to intern minority groups during wartime (NCC, 2021). The Supreme Court decision was ultimately reached on December 18th, 1944 (NCC, 2021). Fred Korematsu was convicted of violating the exclusion order (NCC, 2021). This decision would have a greater impact on the power of the government than most people initially thought (NCC, 2021).

To add, the Supreme Court decided to uphold Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 with a ruling of 6 to 3 (NCC, 2021). This means that out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, 6 believed the orders were constitutional while 3 agreed with Fred Korematsu’s arguments. In Justice Hugo Black’s report for the majority, he stated that “…all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect” (Black, 1944). He adds, “That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional” (Black, 1944). Justice Black is unfortunately correct in this statement because unethical and immoral government decisions do not make them unconstitutional (Black, 1944). In his opinion, Justice Black states that “Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can” (Black, 1944). It was believed that in the case of wartime, the military had the right to force Japanese Americans into an exclusion area (United States, 1944).

As for the three dissenting Justices, they sided with Mr. Korematsu (NCC, 2021). These Justices found that Fred Korematsu’s constitutional rights had been violated and their dissents would be referenced for years to come (U.S. Courts, 1944). The three dissents came from Justice Owen Roberts, Robert Jackson, and Frank Murphy (U.S. Courts, 1944). Justice Roberts wrote that the conviction of Korematsu was a punishment for failing to submit to a concentration camp (U.S. Courts, 1944). He states that the imprisonment was, “…based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States” (Roberts, 1944). If Justice Roberts is correct in this statement, that means that Korematsu’s constitutional rights were violated, and so were the other American internees.

Along with Roberts, Justice Murphy dissented due to racial influence on the internment (U.S. Courts, 1944). He viewed the internment as a ‘legalization of racism’ (U.S. Courts, 1944). Furthermore, he points out that “All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land” (U.S. Courts, 1944). He saw that the Executive Orders were based on flawed ideas of ancestry, race, and ethnicity and they were unconstitutional given that due process was not carried out for most of those interned (U.S. Courts, 1944).

But in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Executive Orders No. 9066 and No. 9102 were constitutional. The government was within their power and within their legal rights when they imprisoned 120,313 Japanese Americans for their race, ethnicity, and ancestry (United States, 1946). But this decision would be scrutinized when more information came to light years later.

After a while, the camps would be viewed as a distant history; but time does not erase the past and acknowledgments for the reality of the camps was needed. President Carter officially recognized that the camps were unjust, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional (Sklansky, 2016). The early 1980’s also brought about a bipartisan commission that would overrule the Korematsu decision for its failure of political leadership and misinformation (Sklansky, 2016).

In 1984, Marilyn Patel, the Federal District Judge, voided Fred Korematsu’s conviction (Sklansky, 2016). Judge Patel noted that the case of Korematsu v United States, “…stands as a caution that in times of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability” (Sklansky, 2016).

Even in times of war, it is the government’s responsibility to protect all citizens from hostilities, no matter their ancestry, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and economic status (Sklansky, 2016). In the case of the Japanese internment camps, the government failed their citizens out of fear that had no logic or reason at its core (Sklansky, 2016). The assault on the United States by means of Pearl Harbor was the result of the Japanese Empire planning and executing a terrorist attack. At the time, the internment was found legal, but it was unnecessary in protecting national security.

During the 2000s, a memorial was built in the nation’s capital to honor those Japanese Americans who were unconstitutionally imprisoned by the government during World War II (Daniels, 2002). In 1998, prior to the memorial’s construction, Fred Korematsu received the Medal of Freedom award from then president, Bill Clinton for his lifelong civil rights activism (Sklansky, 2016).

Bibliography