Supreme Court Case of Korematsu - Essay Example

Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. U.S Complaint The complaint in this case was that Korematsuwho was an American of Japanese descent was wrongfully evicted from his location to an internment camp. He complained that this violated his constitutional rights and hence refused to move as the order requested. This led to his arrest and conviction based on disloyalty and disobedience to the country and its laws. Brief summary of the facts At the peak of World War II, President Roosevelt signed a presidential executive order 9066 which demanded that all American-Japanese people be evacuated and taken into internment camps where they would be closely monitored. The aim of this order which was named the Civilian exclusion order 34 of the US army was executed as a way to prevent these American-Japanese from committing espionage during the war time. Korematsu who is the plaintiff saw the execution of the order as being unconstitutional and being in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He therefore refused to move and was arrested and convicted. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court which ruled strongly in favor of the presidential executive order insisting that the rights of the plaintiff were minimal and hence of no significant compared to the Americans in general (Alonso 52). Issue to be resolved The issue that was being resolved by the Supreme Court was on whether to affirm or duly dismiss the conviction order of Korematsu based on violation of his constitutional rights and Fifth Amendment which were being violated. Decision of the court The decision of the court which was delivered by Justice Black and which had a 6-3 decision was the affirmation of the conviction order for Korematsu where it sided with the government about its national security and prevention of espionage. Reasoning in the case The reasoning of the court was not based on the constitutionality of the presidential executive order, the racial segregation or even the loyalty of the petitioner to the United States. It rather looked at the bigger picture which in this case was the safety of the citizens of the United States from espionage and further attacks from the Japanese. The court supported the government on this ruling as the people in the United States who were the majority compared to those who were American-Japanese needed protection from war and the negatives effects that accompanied war. The government had no certainty of the number of Japanese who were disloyal to the United States and loyal to the government of Japan and who could therefore aid their country in the war through trading secrets about the national defense. The military in charge of the exercise concluded that it was an impossible task to segregate the loyal from the disloyal based on the pressure of the war and the time limit it brought about. The best course of action was to therefore segregate all of them and ensure no espionage was committed. The fact that over five thousand of the American-Japanese individuals failed to swear allegiance to the United States as well as renounce their allegiance to the Japanese emperor provided more reasons to hold them under tight security camps and prevent them from causing more bloodshed through espionage (Alonso 87). This was strictly a matter of national security and the lives of the millions of Americans and hence would not be treated as just merely a constitutional or human rights issue as the plaintiff wanted. Opinion of the court-majority argument In their opinion, the justices indicated that they were not unmindful of the hardships that these American-Japanese individuals might be facing in trying to comply with the exclusion order. However, all these were inconveniences brought about by war and the country was still at war. The timeline between when the order was made and when its deadline for enforcement was set was enough time for the petitioner to have moved and complied like the rest of the people. The time between March 27th and May 2nd when the convictions of the defaulters and non-compliers would start was enough time periods to make a move or to raise complaints with the court. However, the petitioner was being convicted because he exceeded the time limit set and hence was in the wrong on this count for refusing to obey a direct order from the president and congress. He had waited for the set timeline to bypass necessitating his arrest and ultimate conviction. The military which were exercising the order had made the warning that those who refused to have complied by the expiry of the set deadline would face punishment. Korematsu’s violation of a direct order was therefore aware of his pending punishment of arrest and conviction leading to possible a fine, jail time or both. He should therefore be held liable for his grievances as well. The justices’ opinion according to Lewis (2010) was that in order for Congress to have passed the exclusion order 34, they must have deliberated intensely over the security issue of the country and especially in relation to how the national defense material and premises might be compromised by the Japanese immigrants in the US. The country was at war with Japan which had already bombed and killed people in the Pearl Harbor and hence could not be trusted no matter where they claimed their loyalty stood. The petitioner also claimed that those people who had been taken to the military camps for seclusion were relocated to detention camps. He therefore states that had he complied with the exclusion order, he would have faced the same fate under the military. The court’s opinion on this issue was it could not separate the issue of detention and that of the exclusion order as they were one and the same and the military must have had good reasons to detain those individuals as a matter of national security. Further, it stated that not all the individuals in the military camps or the assembly centers were taken to the detention relocation centers and hence there is no guarantee that the petitioner would have been taken there as well. Concurring opinion A concurring opinion was given by Justice Frankfurter who stated that the exclusion order 34 was very direct in its instructions which were clearly stated that no individuals of Japanese descent were to be found in a territory where they had been previously been residing but were rather supposed to be at commonly established assembly centers. The order had no contradictions and hence for the plaintiff to be found within the prohibited areas was clearly a direct violation and was liable for his disobedience (Miller, Vandome and McBrewster 198). Further, the justice added that the constitution had provisions for the President and Congress to confer and use their powers during war to wager peace in the nation. The exclusion order 34 which was in accordance with presidential executive order 9066 was in accordance with the constitution as the country was in war and sought peace of their citizens by whichever means they deemed fit. It cannot therefore be said that the order which was in in accordance with the constitution was unconstitutional. The military order was simply an exercise of the war power which the constitution grants in order to safeguard the national life and hence the order was valid. The order would only have been invalid and raise questions had it exceeded the constitutional limits set of which it did not dues its lack of contradictions in statement and execution. 3 dissenting opinions-minority argument The three justices that dissented claimed that the exclusion order was indeed a violation of the constitutional rights of the people as it temporarily excluded the people from the safety of their houses and community leading to likelihood of some causing danger to themselves and others around them. The punishment was also a form of imprisonment without evidence of disloyalty towards the US government. The military orders provided which the petitioner was following were in contradiction. The presidential executive order 9066 proclaimed that people were to remain in their military allocated areas 1 or 2. Korematsu resided in military area 1 and his understanding of the orders was that he could leave or remain in this area as long as he gave notice of leaving. He chose not to live the area. The exclusion order by Congress stated that people who did not leave their areas to move towards the assembly points would be charged for misdemeanor. This was in contradiction with presidential orders and the plaintiff chose to follow the earlier order and remained in the area only to be arrested and convicted of violation of the exclusion order 34. Justice Murphy dissented on the grounds that the military orders and actions went over the limit of their constitutional powers and especially so without having declared a martial law. The issue was therefore purely a racial segregation matter simply because the nation was at war with Japan making their people (majority of who are born US citizens) suffer the consequences. The war was a conflict of interests where the military tried to exercise their limitations without justifying it in any way which was a clear violation of the constitution. The Fifth Amendment which guarantees equal protection by the law was also violated based on the fact that the issue was based on racial discrimination targeting only the people of Japanese descent (Miller, Vandome and McBrewster 198). Your objective assessment-your theory of law The exclusion order 34 was extremely against the constitution based on the fact that it targeted only people of one race residing in a particular area. Majority of those people such as the plaintiff were born in America and hence their allegiance whether they stated it openly or not was in the US as they knew no other heritage. Some of them may have been Japanese immigrants who might have supported the Japanese but the military had capacity and intelligence to filter them out and let the rest lead their lives as the rest of the Americans were doing. The war was also a political issue and should never have involved the Americans in it directly. I therefore dissent the ruling made in this case of supporting the government. The ruling was simply based on paying political allegiance to the president who had chosen these justices and nothing more. The people such as the plaintiff were simply left in the crossfire and suffered the ultimate consequence of their human rights to liberty and security being violated unapologetically. Work Cited Alonso, Karen. Korematsu V. United States: Japanese-American Internment Camps. California: Enslow, 2009. Lewis, Thomas. U. S. Court Cases. New York: Salem Press incorporated, 2010. Miller, Frederic, Agnes Vandome and John McBrewster. Korematsu V. United States. New York: Alphascript Publishing, 2009. Read More