sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fred Korematsu

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE THE PRESIDENCY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES

after Japan attacked Pearl Pearl afterattacked Japan . DeWitt States United v. Hirabayashi Just Attack on Pearl Harbor Attack on Pearl 7, 1941, Dec. on Hawaii Harbor, Western L. DeWitt of the John General urged others and Command Defense take to Roosevelt Franklin President 140,000 nearly against the action living the on Americans Japanese On States. United the of coast west issued Roosevelt 1942, February14, 9066 giving the Order Executive remove militaryforcibly to authority Japanese of anyone incarcerate and livingthe within 60 miles of descent and , , to critical deemed area – an coast potentially and defense national vulnerable to espionage. One month One espionage. to vulnerable Order Executive issued Roosevelt later,

by Artby Ward Century19th of the end at the States United the immigrating began people to Japanese to Hawaii from Moving homeland. in their upheaval social political and of because the by in place put numbersin large was ban came a until they states, Western the 2,000 from ballooned in U.S. the of Japanese The population 1924. of Immigration Act Japanese-Americanof ban. A generation the time of at the 100,000 over well to in 1890 – parents immigrant their from distinct quite were States, United in the born children, the as such birth. – by communities Their Americans were and English fluent spoke they sixty-squareIts housed blocks – thrived. California Angeles, in Los Tokyo Little largest, and businesses. schools, markets, temples, some 40,000 people and included carry Congress to internment. the out Authority Relocation War the establishing 9102 in support legislation passed 1942, 1, April On subsequently orders. president’s the of Courtwhich the Americans Japanese on a curfew imposed DeWitt General upheld of case in the 1943 21, June on unanimously in placed were people report and 110,000 Centers, Assembly they that to also ordered vanished. the coast. In Los Angeles, Little Tokyo from away relocation camps ancestry citizen of Japanese an American was in born . Korematsu Fred serve his country to effort, war in the militaryjoin the Wanting to denied tried he was but doing his part,in the from a job as a welder he got Undeterred reasons. health for to an Italian-American want did not and to engaged woman was He industry. defense moved he Instead, center. relocation a to report to ordered when fiancé and job his leave UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING (1944) V. U.S. KOREMATSU INTRODUCTORY ESSAYINTRODUCTORY The attack on Pearl Harbor, image courtesy Library Harbor, Pearl on The attack Division Photographs Prints and Congress of (LC-USZ62-104778). (1944) that (1944) The entrance to Manzanar War Relocation Center, one one Center, Relocation Manzanar War The entrance to where Japanese-American camps citizens and ten of during World interned resident Japanese aliens were II. Image courtesy LibraryWar Prints and Congress of (LC-DIG-ppprs-00286). Division Photographs , the Court, the partein Ex held Endo Korematsu citizens deemed “loyal” must be set free. The war ended in the fall of 1945, and all of the of all and 1945, of fall in the ended war The free. set be must “loyal” citizens deemed Japanese-Americans 1948 The released. Claims Act were camps the at citizens interned received The government losses. their for compensation receive to detainees camp allowed to a neighboring town and underwent and neighboring town a to authorities surgeryplastic convince to Spanish-Hawaiian of he was that Korematsu 1942, May origin. In violating Civilian for arrested was No. 34 U.S. of the Order Exclusion sentenced convicted, was He Army. to five years in prison, paroled, and at camp internment the to sent challenged Utah. Korematsu Topaz, believing wartimethe provisions, Congress and President the that powers war their had exceeded and exclusion implementing by of Americans of rights the restricting Japanese descent. Supreme Court Decision Court Supreme The U.S. with sided Korematsu’s outweighed espionage against protect to need the that and held government the compulsorythat argued opinion and 6-3 the majority wrote Black Hugo rights. Justice exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of emergency which curtailall legal restrictions that peril. Black noted and civil the a single racial rights of This rigid scrutiny. most the under be judged should and suspect immediately are group was the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny but upheld a racial classification. disloyal from loyal military’sthe Black determine accepted assertion to impossible it was that military on based was that judgment temporarytheir exclusion that and Americans Japanese a real possibility. Japan was Coast by of the West an invasion were centers relocation the said and racist actions government’s the called dissenters The very‘the of brink over goes said: “This exclusion Murphy Frank Justice camps. concentration legalization the from I dissent racism…. of abyss ugly the into falls and power’ constitutional whatever part justifiable no has degree any in and form any in discrimination Racial racism. of or blood by kin are in way of this nation some All residents of life. way democratic in our parta necessarily primarily and are distinct and they new the of Yet land. foreign a to culture heirsas the all times at of treated be accordingly must They States. United civilization the of the by guaranteed rights and freedoms all the to and as entitled experiment American the particularly the that was and Robert Justice Constitution.” troubled dissented also Jackson government, the of favor in ruling by then, and place first the in case the Courtaccepted had “Whileaction: future order an unconstitutional for precedent a constitutional created had will only last as long as the conflict, a judicial construction of the due processliberty CourtThe itself…. to clauseblow order subtle the than more far is a order this will sustain that of and procedure in criminal discrimination racial principle of the validated all time has for for ready weapon a loaded like citizens. The principle American transplanting about then lies a plausible claim of an urgent need.” authority that can bring forward the hand of any as day same the down Handed

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE THE PRESIDENCY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE THE PRESIDENCY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES Korematsu v. U.S.? v. Korematsu red Korematsu challenge his detention? challenge his detention? red Korematsu titution’s meaning change crisis? during times of as the objective of Executive Order 9102? of Executive as the objective case? as the reasoning of the dissenters in Korematsu’s y do you think the Solicitor General’s Office did not report Solicitor think the to the Supreme y do you w did the majority opinion explain the Court’sw did the majority opinion explain decision in ccording to , what authority did the military Order 9066, have? Executive ccording to Should the Cons What w On what grounds did F Ho What w Wh security Court that actually posed no documented evidence risks? A

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. $131 million in claims, and paid $38 million to settle them. Around 3,000 Japanese- Around them. settle million in and paid $38 claims, million to $131 land of ownership had prevented that Laws Angeles. Los Tokyo, in Little resettled Americans dynamic community a vibrant, once was what and lifted, empty, remained buildings but were more or less died. In 1970, Los Angeles officially designated ain large return did not Americans While Japanese area. the in of redeveloping hopes seven-blockTokyo area as Little numbers, some Japanese companies opened American officesthere andother businesses serve the community. continued to that evidence archival uncovered case Korematsu’s studying attorneys 1980s, early In the the Solicitor General’s office – which represented theUnited States innotCourt Supreme the reportedcitizens actually American Japanese that to evidence the lawsuit – had States United in the his conviction again challenged Korematsu risk.security no posed Fred discovered District Court newly using the Northernthe In 1983, for California. District of overturn not this did but conviction, Korematsu’s cleared Marilyn Patel Judge documentation, a was Americans of Japanese Court’sSupreme the and internment removal that decision measure. constitutional war Civil the signed LibertiesReagan $20,000 which authorized in Act, Ronald President In 1988, libertyof loss their for an apology property. and for called and detainees camp to reparations a formal Bush signed H.W. George President and issued were checks the later, years Three the Presidential Korematsu Fred awarded Bill President Clinton In 1998, of apology. letter of 86. 30, 2005 at the age He died on March Medal of Freedom. QuestionsComprehension and Critical Thinking KOREMATSU V. U.S. (1944)

Case Background DIRECTIONS Tension between liberty and security, especially in times of war, is as old as the republic itself. Should the text of Read the Case the Constitution be interpreted one way in peacetime and Background and another way in wartime, as suggested for a unanimous Key Question. Court in the World War I era by Justice Oliver Wendell Then analyze the Holmes in Schenck v. U.S. (1919)? “When a nation is Documents provided. at war, many things that might be said in time of peace Finally, answer the are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will Key Question in a not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court well-organized essay could regard them as protected by any constitutional that incorporates right.” After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, your interpretations 1941, the United States entered World War II, and faced THE PRESIDENCY: CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES of the Documents once again the challenge of applying the Constitution’s as well as your own guarantees in the context of wartime. Based on advice knowledge of history. from the military that there was a real threat of Japanese invasion of the west coast, as well as a credible danger of Japanese espionage, the U.S. government ordered the relocation and detention of Japanese Americans living in CONSTITUTIONAL that region. From April of 1942 until the end of the war PRINCIPLES in September of 1945, 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry, most of them U.S. citizens, were deprived of their Equal protection liberty and held in detention camps far from their former Due process homes. They lost most of the property they had entrusted Inalienable rights to government authorities, but had no way of documenting their losses because they only had a few days’ notice to dispose of their property before reporting to assembly centers for relocation. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was very real, as was the fear engendered by it. How real was the threat of espionage? Faced with extensive questioning on this point by the Supreme Court in oral argument, Solicitor General convinced a majority of the Justices that the detention of Japanese Americans was justified by “military necessity.” ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. o the Constitution shall not be suspended, unless when unless be suspended, shall not ”? In what cases can it be pus”? In what cases habeas corpus habeas corpus habeas cor ollowing the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil the suspension of habeas corpus ollowing (1866) t the government provide when it tries to deprive someone deprive when it tries to provide t the government case? Korematsu This ruling, f held that civilians could not be tried in military long tribunals as War, might this reasoning apply to as civil courts operational. How were the of these rights? What types of rights does this amendment t What types of rights does this amendment them? is the relationship between What protect? What mus What is “the writ of What is “the writ suspended?

1. 1. 2. 1. DOCUMENT C DOCUMENT B DOCUMENT A DOCUMENT Ex Parte Milligan in rulers equally and people, for is a law States United the of The Constitution men, of all classes its protection of shield the with covers and in peace, and war pernicious more involving No doctrine circumstances. all under and all times at its provisions of any that than man wit of the by invented ever was consequences a Such government. of exigencies great the of any during be suspended can theorythe but despotism, or on of necessity anarchy to directly leads doctrine has all the within Constitution, the the government, for which it is is based false, it which are necessary preserve to its existence… to granted powers The Fifth Amendment (1791) of process due without property, or liberty, of life, No person shall … be deprived law… The United States Constitution (1789), Article I, Section 9 Constitution States The United (1789), writ of the …The privilege of it. require may the public safety or invasion in cases of rebellion

Images courtesy Images courtesy Library Congress of Prints and Division Photographs (LC-USZ62-104778; LC-USZ62-16555; LC-USZ62-129811). tray? How is that impression How tray? related to public reaction to the decision to remove Japanese remove the decision to public reaction to to related coast?Americans from their homes along the west What impression do these images por

1. DOCUMENT D DOCUMENT A Date Which Will Live in Infamy (1941) in Infamy WhichA Date Will Live

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. amy? amy? e the descriptive terms that President Roosevelt used in this that President Roosevelt terms e the descriptive y did the President maintain “has [already] that a state of war ccording to the Constitution, which branch of government has the the Constitution,ccording to which branch of government speech on the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. What is afterspeech Harbor. on the day the Japanese attack on Pearl effect of this speech? the overall (See the Constitution, Article declare war? to 1,power Section 8, Clause 11.) What is inf Not Wh existed”? A

3. 2. 4. 1. DOCUMENT E DOCUMENT Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Infamy Speech (1941) Infamy D. Roosevelt’s Franklin December 8, 1941 States United - the in infamy which will live - a date 7, 1941 December Yesterday, the of air forces and naval by attacked deliberately and suddenly was America of of Japan.… Empire that it obvious makes Japan from Hawaii of distance the that recorded will be It the During ago. weeks even or days many planned deliberately was attack the deceive to sought deliberately has Government Japanese the time intervening continued for of hope expressions and statements false by States United the peace. … all measures that directed I have Navy, and Army the of Commander-in-Chief As … our defense. for be taken I assertwhen people the of and Congress the will of the that I interpret I believe very certainwill make but uttermost the that to ourselves defend only will not we endanger us again. of treacherythis form shall never and territory our people, our that is no blinking fact There the at exist. Hostilities danger. are in grave our interests attack dastardly and unprovoked the since that declare Congress the I ask that the between existed has war of state a seventh, December Sunday, on Japan by and the Japanese Empire States United arn? NUMBER 6 G-2 SECTION CONFIDENTIAL January 21, 1942 January 21, Army War College, War Army Washington, D. C., Washington, JAPANESE ESPIONAGE JAPANESE INFORMATION BULLETIN INFORMATION , is to be expected. , is to GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY, U.S. GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, ter the Pearl Harbor attack written? this memo the Pearl was ter Of what dangers does this confidential memo w long af How 2. 1. DOCUMENT F DOCUMENT a.communications consular and diplomatic Japanese that expected be It may b. Their espionage net containing Japanese aliens, first and second c. may they diplomats, neutral through net communications their to In addition d.and nationals, neutral Axis nationals, such as of Occidentals, use Extensive Information Bulletin Number 6 (1942, emphasis original) Bulletin Number 6 Information 6. Conclusions. -- an of organization consular and diplomatic using the by now replaced will be allegedly neutral power identified with the Axis. They may also use subverted. officials have neutral countries whom they other of and thoroughly organized is now nationals other and Japanese generation underground. working underground communication net. their own have to be expected Americans subverted (signed) M. ROBINETT, P. Lieut. Colonel, G.S.C., Ass’t Chief of Staff, G-2.

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S.

xecutive order authorize the Secretary of War and his order authorize the Secretary of War xecutive w is Executive Order 9102 different from Executive Order 9066? different from Executive Order 9102 w is Executive Ho What does this e military commanders do? to

1. 1. DOCUMENT H DOCUMENT G DOCUMENT 1. 1. There is established in the Office for Emergency Management of the to directed and is authorized Authority Relocation War the of 2. The Director Executive Order 9102, March 18, 1942 Order 9102, Executive the of statutes and Constitution the by in me By virtuevested authority the of in the Chief of and Commander States United the of as President States, United areas designated from removal the for provide to in and order Navy, and Army it is is necessary security, of national of persons in whose removal the interests as follows: ordered Executive Office of the President theWar Relocation Authority, at the head the President. to and responsible by appointed which shall be a Director of designated areas the from removal, the for a program effectuate and formulate military commander appropriate or Secretary the by time War of to time from the of 1942, No. 9066 February of 19, Order Executive of authority the under for and Order, Executive such under personspersonsof classes or designated and supervision.…their relocation, maintenance, Executive Order 9066, February Order 9066, 19, 1942 Executive time to and the Military from Commanders whom he may Secretary…the of War, actions such deems Commander designated any or he whenever designate, time necessarymilitary prescribe to desirable, or such of and places in such areas which from Military determine, Commanders may appropriate the or as he extent of right the which, to respect with such and excluded, be personsall or may any restrictions whatever to subject be shall leave in, or remain enter, personto any in his Military impose may Commander Sectaryappropriate the the or War of discretion… tructions would be most frightening/ tructions would ted? tructed to do? to tructed ance is promised to them? ance is promised to unpleasant to you? Why? To what extent would you trust the Wartime you would what extent To Why? you? unpleasant to property any Civil Control Administration left safeguard to behind in their care? What are they ins What are they What assist What part(s) of these ins To whom are these instructions directed? On what date was the was On what date whom are these instructions directed? To announcement pos 1. 2. 3. 4. DOCUMENT I DOCUMENT Instructions Japanese, April 1, to 1942 Image courtesy the National Archives and Records Administration (Records (Records Administration and Records Archives Image courtesy the National identifier: 537). ARC - 1989, 1941 Authority, Relocation the War of

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. (1943) as Hirabayashi convicted? as Hirabayashi our opinion, to what extent did persons of Japanese ancestry what extent our opinion, to y did the Court hold that the curfew was reasonable? y did the Court was hold that the curfew Of what act w Wh In y due process? receive

2. 3. 1. DOCUMENT J DOCUMENT Pursuant to Executive Order No. 9066 … the military commander of the Western 9066 militaryNo. … the Order Western the of commander Executive Pursuantto all persons … that Japanese of requiring an order promulgated Command Defense ancestry military within a designated within “be area place of residence their citizen of States hoursthe of 8 a United p.m. and 6 a.m.” Appellant, between Court District this violation of federal in the for convicted was ancestry, Japanese order. curfew Held: acting Executive, and the Congress of authority constitutional within the It was measure. as an emergency war order curfew prescribe this to together, basis for substantial was there and circumstances, facts all the light of In the militarythe and in which Congress conclusion, the the that united, commander necessary measure of the threat meet to a protective as applied was curfew effort war the affect substantially which would espionage and and sabotage invasion. enemy aid a threatened to which might reasonably be expected and it restrains clause, The Fifthprotection equal no contains Amendment due of a denial to as amounts Congress discriminatoryonly such legislation by process. another than rather Japan, by threatened was shores on our attack … that The fact no particular apartcitizens [Japanese] set who have others from power, enemy demonstrated the fact, to eyes our close cannot with Japan. ...We associations by experience, that, in time of war, residents having ethnic affiliations with an differenta of those than danger of source greater a be may enemy invading ancestry. Hirabayashi v. United States v. Hirabayashi ernment”? ou think he was referring in this warning? referring ou think he was e that it was important secure e that it was “to act immediately to To what principles do y To did he writ Why What practice did Biddle describe as “dangerous and repugnant to What practice did Biddle describe the principles of our Gov normal American Japanese people] into [of loyal the reabsorption life”? 2. 3. 1. DOCUMENT K DOCUMENT Memorandum, Biddle to FDR, December 30, 1943 FDR, December 30, to Memorandum, Biddle President Roosevelt: to Letter Biddle, General Francis Attorney 95,000 about of Japanese, …The importantreabsorption the secure to thing is to being loyal indication of every give who citizens and are whom two-thirds of keeping of practice The present life. American normal into States, United the longer for basis of race the on camps citizens in concentration American loyal principles the of our necessaryto and repugnant than is absolutely is dangerous these agitation against the so that is It necessaryalso act now to Government. after continue the war. citizens does not

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. case, we are unable are we case, ere the “real military exclusion dangers” justified that the y do you think this Justice clarified the point regarding racial y do you ccording to the majority opinion, why was the exclusion order within the exclusion was the majority opinion, why ccording to prejudice? A of Congress? the power What w Wh order? (See paragraph 3)

2. 1. 3. MAJORITY OPINION MAJORITY DOCUMENT L DOCUMENT Korematsu v. United States (1944) v. Korematsu in the Hirabayashi announced we In the light of the principles to Executive the and Congress of power war the beyond it was that conclude to time at the area war Coast ancestryJapanese of those West the from exclude did.… they war, of in time as its privileges, and, Citizenship as well its responsibilities, has citizens of groups large of Compulsory exclusion heavier. is always burden the peril, is and emergency direst of circumstances under except homes, their from conditions under when, But institutions. governmental basic our with inconsistent to power the forces, hostile by warfare, modern of threatened are shores our danger.… with the threatened must be commensurate protect citizen in a a of imprisonment of case with the here dealing are we that is said It inquiryor evidence without of his ancestry, because solely camp concentration task Our States. United the towards disposition good and his loyalty concerning of imprisonment the involving a case this were clear, duty our be simple, would Regardless racial prejudice. of because camp concentration citizen in a loyal a it deem -- and we centers and relocation assembly the of nature true the of unjustifiableto call order. themexclusion an concentration but nothing camps, with withspecifically dealing allare we the-- implies ugly term that connotations real the to reference without racial prejudice, of outlines into this case cast To Korematsu issue. the confuses merely military presented, dangers which were Militarythe his race. him or from hostility to of because Area excluded not was the because Empire, Japanese the with war at are we because excluded was He Coast West of our military an invasion constituted feared authorities properly decided they because measures, security proper take to constrained felt and militarythe that all citizens of Japanese that demanded of the situation urgency ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time ofwar inour military leaders -- as this. just do to power the have should they that -- determined it must inevitably parton the disloyalty of the militarysome, of evidence was There authorities short. -- cannot time was and great, was action We for need the that considered at that that, say hindsight -- now of calm perspective of the ourselves availing by unjustified. time, these actions were Affirmed. ollowing phrase in your own words: “The principle then lies words: own phrase in your ollowing y does this dissenting justice object to the majority’s ruling? y does this dissenting justice object to Wh Put the f authority that the hand of any ready for a loaded weapon, about like a plausible claim of an urgent need.” can bring forward

2. 1. DOCUMENT M DOCUMENT Korematsu v. U.S. (1944), Dissenting Opinion v. Korematsu deporting for and program libertyArmy the to danger the Much is said of from of But a judicial construction extraction. Japanese citizens of these detaining blow subtle more is a far will order this that sustain clause process due the however A militaryitself. liberty order the of to order, promulgation the than … But militarythe than longer last to apt emergency. is not unconstitutional, the to it conforms that show to order an such opinion rationalizes judicial a once Constitution the that show to Constitution the rationalizes rather or Constitution, racial principle of the Court the validated has time all for order, an such sanctions The citizens. American transplanting of and procedure in criminal discrimination authority any of hand the for ready weapon, loaded a like about lies principle then a plausible claim of an urgent need.… that can bring forward

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. titutional question” in Endo’s case, alleges that she is a loyal and law-abiding law-abiding and loyal a is she that alleges habeas corpus Korematsu v. U.S., v. Korematsu as as announced on the same day according to this Justice’s reasoning? What did he say was the clear was this Justice’saccording to reasoning? What did he say that question? to answer December 18, do 1944. Why cases. Compare and contrast the two think the Court’syou such majority came to different conclusions in cases? related these two What is the “serious cons This decision w

2. 1. DOCUMENT N DOCUMENT , December 18, Mitsuye 1944 evacuated She was ancestry. Japanese of citizen is an American Endo… Mitsuye certain pursuantto 1942, in military… and California, orders Sacramento, from Modoc Newell, at located Center Relocation War Lake Tule the to removed was California. County, of writ a for petition Her citizen of the United States, that no charge has been made against her, that she that her, against made been has charge no that States, United the citizen of is being unlawfully detained, and that she is confined in theRelocation Center held there against her will. and under armed guard Authority Relocation the DepartmentWar the by It is conceded and by of Justice is she no claim that make citizen. They law-abiding and is a loyal appellant that of disloyalty. suspected charge or that she is even any on detained as protection release him grant a conditional to a citizen or detain to The authority is conceded. when his loyalty at least is exhausted sabotage against espionage or transform would we thereafter, continued detain to authority the that held If we by done not was That else. something into measure sabotage or espionage an To … it. ratified which 1942, 21, March of Act the by or 9066 No. Order Executive President the and Congress the that assume be to would broadly that them read people against these this discriminatorythat taken be should action intended their conceded government the though ancestrytheir of account on wholly even … such an assumption. make cannot We this country. to loyalty Relocation War the by release an unconditional to is entitled Endo Mitsuye Authority. [her] The courtquestion,-whether constitutional with a serious faced is squarely Constitution Bill of the of Rights of the federal guarantees the violated detention answer one but be can There law. of process due of guarantee the especially and libertyher of a deprived been citizen has for loyal admittedly An question. that to and go as she come to be free she should Constitution the Under years. of period been liberty her activities have innocent Instead, pleases. and other of motion and conditioned. She should be discharged. prohibited Korematsu v. U.S.? v. Korematsu George H. W. Bush, LETTER FROM PRESIDENT Bush, LETTER FROM George H. W. CourtesyCalifornia of (1991). INTERNEES TO BUSH the Department of University—Sacramento, State Archives. Special Collections and University ors of internment camps received these letters these ors camps received of internment xtent do you think the United States lived up to those ideals up to lived States think the United do you xtent WASHINGTON THE WHITE HOUSE THE WHITE HOUSE with respect to the events and aftermath of the events with respect to Where did those ideals come from? what e To Living surviv along with $20,000 as partial lost restitution What property. for constitutional ideals did President Bush mention in his letter? 3. 2. 1. DOCUMENT O DOCUMENT George H. W. Bush, Letter from President Bush to Internees (1991) Internees Bush to from President Bush, Letter George H. W. alone monetaryA words and sum erase or years lost restore cannot they can neither memories; painful to Nation’s resolve our convey fully the uphold to injustice and rectify can never We rights of individuals. past. the of wrongs right the fully for stand a clear can take But we serious that recognize and justice Japanese to done were injustices II. War Americans during World calling for law a In enacting and offering a sincere restitution Americans fellow your apology, in a veryrenewed sense, real have, the to commitment traditional their and equality, of freedom, ideals have family and your You justice. the future. our best wishes for Sincerely, George Bush

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. Confession of Error: The Solicitor General’s Mistakes of Error: During Japanese- The Solicitor the Confession Department the Cases, by 20, 2011 Internment American of Justice, May States. General of the United Solicitor Acting , litigation on appellate overseeing for is responsible General ...The Solicitor in the States the United and with representing States, the United behalf of Solicitors that roles the of accounts terrific several are There Court. Supreme history civil it is also But rights. in advancing throughout played have General particularof episode One importantmistakes. the remember relevance to forced the of defense General’s Solicitor is the Month AAPI Heritage to II.… War of Japanese-Americansrelocation and internment during World the reached Korematsu Fred and Hirabayashi Gordon of cases the time By the report intelligence Court,Supreme of a key had learned General Solicitor the The Ringle Report, internment. behind the rationale the undermined that from the Office of Naval Intelligence,found that only a small percentage of most the that and threat, security a potential posed Americans Japanese not did General Solicitor the But in custody. or known already were dangerous Courtthe Department inform report,the of from Justice warnings of despite alert suppression the to failing that Courtthe attorneys “might approximate loyal segregate to impossible it was that argued he Instead, evidence.” of Courtthe inform he did Nor a ones. that disloyal from Americans Japanese Americans Japanese that internment, justify the to used of allegations set key off submarines with enemy the communicate to transmitters using radio were matters make FBI the and FCC. And to by discredited had been Coast, West such Americans, Japanese about generalizations gross on relied he worse, “racial solidarity.” by and motivated disloyal were as that they And convictions. CourtKorematsu’s The Supreme and Hirabayashi’s upheld a half century nearly courts court One it took decisions. these overturn for to Solicitor the by played role the did so highlighted that in 1980s decision the to credence” “special CourtSupreme the that emphasizing General, gave The court representations. General’s the that Solicitor the it unlikely thought General Solicitor the had way same the ruled CourtSupreme have would reminder a as today stand still decisions those Yet candor. complete exhibited of that era. of the mistakes DOCUMENT P DOCUMENT Duty of Absolute Candor: Katyal Blog Post (2011) Blog Post Candor: Katyal Duty of Absolute Background: In 1980, President ordered a special investigation of the facts regarding the relocation and Internment II. The on WartimeCommission Relocation War during World and detention of Japanese Americans of Civilians issued its report in 1983, concluding that the decision Japanese to Americans from remove the west coast had been based on “race prejudice, and a failure political of leadership.” (Reportthe Commission on of hysteria, war of Civilians) and Internment Wartime Relocation xtent do you believe the relocation believe do you xtent tate the last paragraph of Acting Solicitor General Katyal’s 2011 Katyal’s General Solicitor tate the last of Acting paragraph blog post in your own words. To what extent do you believe that believe do you what extent To words. own blog post in your in 1944 carried out his “great responsibility General Fahy Solicitor candor?” and duty of absolute and detention of Japanese Americans was based on “military was of Japanese Americans and detention necessity?” Res Based on this document, to what e what to Based on this document, Today, our Office takes this history as an important reminder that the “special the that reminder important an as history this takes Office our Today, Court the Supreme before requires enjoys General Solicitor the credence” representations in our candor absolute of duty a and responsibility great to the Court. Only then can we fulfill our responsibilityto defend the United all Americans. the rights of protect and its Constitution, and to States Source: http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1346 1. 2.

©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ©THE BILL OF RIGHTS INSTITUTE KOREMATSU V. U.S. ENDURES t covered persons are authorized by this law? persons are authorized by t covered ccording to this law, who are “covered persons”? who are “covered this law, ccording to o what extent does this law permit covered persons legal access to permit covered does this law o what extent representation? A What actions agains T

2. 3. 1. National Defense Authorization Act (2012) Act Authorization National Defense Subtitle D — Counterterrorism OF OF AUTHORITYFORCES OF THE ARMED AFFIRMATION 20 SEC. 1021. THE TO PURSUANT PERSONS COVERED DETAIN TO UNITED STATES THE FORCE. USE OF MILITARY FOR AUTHORIZATION (a) IN 24 GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the Presidentto use of Use for Authorization the pursuant to force necessaryall appropriate and to States United the of Forces Armed the for authority the includes Military Force of war. persons under the law pending disposition covered detain person person is any this section under covered PERSONS.—A 6 (b) COVERED as follows: attacks terrorist the aided or (1) A personcommitted, authorized, who planned, those for responsible those harbored or 2001, 11, September on occurred that attacks. a part(2) A person who was supportedsubstantially of or Taliban, the al-Qaeda, or States United the against hostilities in engaged are that forces associated or act belligerent a partners, coalition its person committed has who including any forces. or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy a persondisposition of law the under OF WAR.—The (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW include the following: (a) may as described in subsection of war hostilities the of end the until trial without war of law the under (1) Detention Use of Military for Force…. the Authorization authorized by military including to access both, or Detainee civilian representation, legal or applicable legal in which any manner the and access on such limitations any privileges will be balanced with national security considerations THE