DOCSLIB.ORG

A Controversial Executive Order Leads to Internment Camps - National Constitution Center a Controversial Executive Order Leads to Internment Camps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Controversial Executive Order Leads to Internment Camps - National Constitution Center a Controversial Executive Order Leads to Internment Camps 11/13/2020 A controversial executive order leads to internment camps - National Constitution Center A controversial executive order leads to internment camps February 19, 2020 by NCC Staff 303 245 28 16 Shares On this day in 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued his most-controversial executive order, an act that sent more than 100,000 people to government-controlled facilities because of their ethnicity. On December 7, 1941, Japanese military forces attacked the United States base in Hawaii without warning. More than 2,000 Americans died in the attack, and a united Congress answered President Roosevelt’s request for war. Roosevelt issued Presidential Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, after fears generated by the Japanese attack made the safety of America’s West Coast a priority. He directed the military to isolate any citizen, if needed, from a 60-mile-wide coastal area from Washington state to California and extending inland into southern Arizona. The executive order didn’t specify Japanese- Americans as a group, but the U.S. military detained more than 100,000 people in the next six months and moved them to camps and facilities with armed guards and barbed wire. There were 10 camps set up nationally, and about 120,000 people were interned in the camps during the war. About two-thirds of them were Japanese-Americans who were born in the United States. People of Italian and German heritage were also detained. The controversial moves were met with legal challenges, which eventually were unsuccessful in freeing the detainees from the camps, despite the serious constitutional issues involved. Under another provision, called Exclusion Order No. 34, a Japanese-American citizen named Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu was arrested for going into hiding in Northern California after refusing to go to an internment camp. Korematsu appealed his conviction through the legal system, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in late 1944. The court had heard a similar case in 1943, Hirabayashi v. United States, and decided that Gordon Hirabayashi, a college student, was guilty of violating a curfew order. The Korematsu v. United States decision referenced the Hirabayashi case, but it also ruled on the ability of the military, in times of war, to exclude and intern minority groups. The Court ruled in a 6 to 3 vote that the government had the power to arrest and intern Fred Korematsu. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, included a paragraph that is still debated today: “It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can,” Black said. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-controversial-order-leads-to-internment-camps 1/2 11/13/2020 A controversial executive order leads to internment camps - National Constitution Center Later in the decision, Black explained the necessity of the military’s decision. “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,” he said. The three dissenting Justices said Korematsu’s constitutional rights had been clearly violated. “I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of Constitutional rights,” said Justice Owen Roberts. “Such exclusion goes over ‘the very brink of constitutional power,’ and falls into the ugly abyss of racism,” said Justice Frank Murphy. “The broad provisions of the Bill of Rights… are [not] suspended by the mere existence of a state of war. Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and ideals.” Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent highlighted both the racism that Murphy mentioned and that while military orders were not normally subject to judicial review, “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.” On the same day, the Court said in another decision, Ex Parte Endo, that the government couldn’t detain an “admittedly loyal citizen” indefinitely. The decision paved the way for Japanese-Americans to return to the West Coast, but it also didn’t contravene the Korematsu decision. In subsequent years, the American internment policy has been met with harsh criticism. In 1988, Congress awarded restitution payments of $20,000 to each survivor of the 10 camps. As part of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Congress apologized “on behalf of the people of the United States for the evacuation, relocation, and internment of such citizens and permanent resident aliens.” In 1983, federal courts had also overturned the original convictions of Hirabayashi and Korematsu. Also, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) effectively ended the Korematsu ruling’s legitimacy as precedent. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-controversial-order-leads-to-internment-camps 2/2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impartiality Paradox
    The Impartiality Paradox Melissa E. Loewenstemt The constitutional principles that bind our free society instruct that the American people must "hold the judgeship in the highest esteem, that they re- gard it as the symbol of impartial, fair, and equal justice under law."'1 Accord- ingly, in contrast with the political branches, the Supreme Court's decisions "are legitimate only when [the Court] seeks to dissociate itself from individual 2 or group interests, and to judge by disinterested and more objective standards." As Justice Frankfurter said, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. 3 Almost instinctively, once a President appoints a judge to sit on the Su- preme Court,4 the public earmarks the Justice as an incarnation of impartiality, neutrality, and trustworthiness. Not surprisingly then, Presidents have looked to the Court for appointments to high profile and important committees of national concern. 5 It is among members of the judiciary that a President can find individuals certain to obtain the immediate respect of the American people, and often the world community. It is a judge's neutrality, fair-mindedness, and integrity that once again label him a person of impartiality and fairness, a per- son who seeks justice, and a President's first choice to serve the nation. The characteristics that led to a judge's initial appointment under our adversary sys- tem, and which lend themselves to appearances of propriety and justice in our courts, often carry over into extrajudicial activities as well. As Ralph K. Winter, Jr., then a professor at the Yale Law School, stated: [t]he appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court to head a governmental com- mission or inquiry usually occurs because of the existence of a highly controversial issue which calls for some kind of official or authoritative resolution ....And the use of Supreme Court Justices, experience shows, is generally prompted by a presi- t Yale Law School, J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rehnquist Court and Beyond: Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Or Mere Chastening of Constitutional Aspirations?
    THE REHNQUIST COURT AND BEYOND: REVOLUTION, COUNTER-REVOLUTION, OR MERE CHASTENING OF CONSTITUTIONAL ASPIRATIONS? THE PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FROM PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT TO THE NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson* I. INTRODUCTION: PARTISAN ENTRENCHMENT Five years ago, we offered a theory of how constitutional change and constitutional revolutions occurred, which we called the theory of “partisan entrenchment.”1 Much has happened in the subsequent half-decade, and we are grateful for this opportunity to offer an update of our thoughts, together with some amendments to our initial formulation. By far the most important amendment is to draw out in more detail how the development of constitutional doctrine by courts occurs within the broader framework of changes in constitutional regimes, which include changes in institutions, legislation, and administrative regulation. The forces of democratic politics drive these regime changes, and the major actors are not courts but the political branches. Although courts may initially resist these changes, in the long run, they cooperate with them, shape their contours, and legitimate them through the development of constitutional doctrine. In the second half of this essay, we describe an emerging regime of institutions and practices that we call the “National Surveillance State,” which, we think, represents the major constitutional development of our era. The National Surveillance State responds to the particular needs of warfare, foreign policy, and domestic law enforcement in the twenty-first century. That such a state is emerging has become clear in the wake of 9/11 and debates about the War on Terror. However, it is not limited to the * Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Pages
    Master Pages 15 • Be Careful With My Court Legitimacy, Public Opinion, and the Chief Justices SHAWN C. FETTIG AND SARA C. BENESH On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al., upholding the Affordable Care Act by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts read his majority opinion. Almost immediately, political scientists and pundits alike began dissecting the opinion and the reason for Chief Justice Roberts’s vote. Public approval of the Court, as noted by the media, was at its lowest levels ever as the Court prepared to hear the case.1 Many argued that the Court’s legitimacy weighed heavily on Roberts as he considered the case, with CBS News reporting that Roberts, as chief justice, “is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.”2 “To be sure,” wrote New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, “the chief justice considers himself the custodian of the Supreme Court’s prestige, authority, and le- gitimacy, and he is often its voice in major cases.”3 He reprised the role in King v. Burwell, the 6- 3 decision announced almost exactly one year later upholding the subsidies associated with the health care exchanges.4 There, Rosen argued, the chief used the case’s reason to confer legitimacy. Judicial restraint, Rosen suggests, drove the chief’s decision, for “In a polarized age, it is important for the Supreme Court to maintain its institutional legiti- macy by deferring to the political branches.”5 We know that the Court is influenced by public opinion and the Court’s decisions are often in line with it.6 We also know that judicial legitimacy is fairly widespread and relatively stable,7 and that it is drawn from diffuse 374 Ward.indd 374 2/12/2016 2:30:33 PM Master Pages Be Careful With My Court • 375 support, a “reservoir of good will,”8 that is resilient and resistant to signifi- cant fluctuation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Process, Equal Protection, and Substantive Due Process
    ARTICLES THE POLITICAL PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Jesse H. Choper* Stephen F. Ross** ABSTRACT In its landmark decision in Carolene Products, the Supreme Court crafted a uniquely American solution to the counter-majoritarian dilemma present in any constitutional democracy: when unelected judges should substantively review policy choices made by elected legislators and executives. The political process theory underlying that decision is that a court with a history of decisions based on judicial ideology should limit close review of government actions to three situations: (1) when the action contravenes a specific provision of the Bill of Rights, (2) when the action threatens to improperly limit the political process, or (3) with regard to the broadly worded Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, when courts determine that the political process does not work normally. The Supreme Court has not faithfully implemented this approach over the years. However, neither Justices nor commentators have developed a superior alternative approach. We believe that most Americans ought to prefer a return to Carolene Products, as superior (either philosophically or because of risk aversion) to leaving important constitutional precedents subject to the vagaries of highly partisan politics. Our approach builds upon insights of Justices Harlan Fiske Stone, Robert Jackson, and Thurgood Marshall. First, courts should consider challenges initially under the Equal Protection Clause. Second, the category of cases warranting heightened judicial scrutiny should be expanded to include those in which claimants can prove that they are excluded from the Madisonian factional “wheeling and dealing” that characterizes ordinary politics. Third, substantive due process claims should remain available, but only where claimants can demonstrate that animus or prejudice precludes their ability to use the political process to redress their grievances.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?∗
    Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important?∗ Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn & Jeffrey A. Segal† Abstract When President George W. Bush declared that his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, was “not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today,” no one should have been shocked. To the contrary: The President was merely reiterating a claim dominant in public and scholarly discourse over the Supreme Court—that justices come to the Court with robust ideological outlooks and do not veer from them over the course of their tenure. Nonetheless, and despite the commonplace nature of the claim, it is not without its share of skeptics; indeed, some commentators now contend that ideological drift among Supreme Court justices is not just possible but likely. Using systematically developed data and sophisticated statistical tools, we address the ques- tion of whether justices remain committed to a particular doctrinal course over time. The results, as it turns out, could not be clearer: Contrary to the received wisdom, virtually all justices serving since 1937 has grown more liberal or conservative during their tenure on the Court. Finding that change is the rule, not the exception, we develop the implications of our findings for the justices’ appointment to the Court and the doctrine they develop once confirmed. We show, for example, that Presidents hoping to create a lasting legacy in the form of justices who share their ideology can be reasonably certain that their appointees will behave in line with contemporaneous expectations—at least during the justice’s first term in office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Japs”: Reading the Body in the Korematsu Case
    When You Can’t Tell Your Friends from “the Japs”: Reading the Body in the Korematsu Case HEIDI KATHLEEN KIM “Parks. Brown. Plessy. To that distinguished list, we add today the name of Fred Korematsu,” said President Bill Clinton gravely, as he awarded Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. As the plaintiff of Korematsu v. United States of America, one of the Supreme Court test cases of the legality of Japanese American incarceration, Korematsu’s personal legacy has been chiefly one of civil rights activism based on his role in this case, the 1980s appeals, and his amicus briefs in Rumsfeld v. Padilla and other Guantánamo Bay detention cases in the 2000s. The strange case of Fred Korematsu is most famous for the legal precedent it set for the incarceration of citizens without trial in time of war, a precedent that has been heavily discussed in recent years in the specter of post-9/11 racial profiling and the citizens and enemy aliens held at Guantánamo Bay prison. In this article, I look more broadly at the logic behind this decision, showing that the Korematsu case is a keystone both of legal decisions that sought to define Asia and America in terms of continually shifting readings of race on the American subject’s body. Even more crucially, Korematsu’s brief, a legally irrelevant attempt to pass as non-Japanese, is part of a larger social dilemma about the racialized Asian body in America during and after WWII, which formed an integral part of the logic that allowed the Supreme Court to claim that military necessity was the reason for mass incarceration.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia Lawyer: a Cautionary Tale
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 145 JANUARY1997 NO. 3 LECTURE PHILADELPHIA LAWYER. A CAUTIONARY TALEt LOUIS H. POLLAKtt I propose to talk with you today about a lawyer of notable and di- verse accomplishment. He was a leading courtroom lawyer-one of the very best. During his early years at the bar he taught law-and in the twilight of his career he served as dean-at one of the great law schools. And in mid-career-at the peak of his lawyerly fame-he was named to the bench. He was a Philadelphia lawyer. Indeed, he may be perceived as the quintessential Philadelphia lawyer. And yet a faithful account of that portion of his career which would seem to t Owen J. Roberts Memorial Lecture, presented at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on November 13, 1996. - United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I am grateful to Stephen B. Burbank, Frank L. Goodman, Louise E. Hayes and Seth E. Mermin for perceptive criticisms of the penultimate draft of this Lecture. (495) 496 UNIVERSITY OFPENNSYLVANIA LAWREVEW [Vol. 145:495 have been crowned with greenest laurels-his years on the highest of high courts-turns out to be a cautionary tale: a cautionary tale which, I respectfully suggest, those who now sit on that highest court would be well advised to take into account. I. As, doubtless, many of you have already surmised, the Philadel- phia lawyer about whom I will speak is Owen Josephus Roberts, the person honored by this Lectureship.
    [Show full text]
  • National Security, National Origin, and the Constitution: 75 Years After EO9066
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2018 National Security, National Origin, and the Constitution: 75 Years after EO9066 Geoffrey R. Stone Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Geoffrey R. Stone, "National Security, National Origin, and the Constitution: 75 Years after EO9066," 68 Case Western Reserve Law Review 1067 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Case W estern Reserve Law Review • Volume 68 • Issue 4 • 2018 N ational Sec u r ity , N ational O r ig in , and the C onstitution : 75 Y ears A fte r EO9066t Geoffrey R. Stonet I am honored to have the opportunity to address this issue, not only because of its importance in American history, but also because of the lessons we must learn from our own experience. It is essential for us to remember, perhaps especially at the present moment, what we as a nation are capable of. We must never forget that we are capa­ ble of doing things we might under other circumstances never imag­ ine. We must always be vigilant and we must always remember that “it” can happen here. As history teaches, war fever often translates into xenophobia. To some extent this is understandable, for in wartime individuals with a connection to an enemy nation are, in fact, more likely to pose risks of espionage, sabotage and subversion.
    [Show full text]
  • Unfrozen Caveman Justice Reviewing Hugo Black: a Biography
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1995 Review Essay: Unfrozen Caveman Justice Reviewing Hugo Black: A Biography. by Roger K. Newman. Gary Stein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stein, Gary, "Review Essay: Unfrozen Caveman Justice Reviewing Hugo Black: A Biography. by Roger K. Newman." (1995). Constitutional Commentary. 362. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/362 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Review Essay UNFROZEN CAVEMAN JUSTICE Gary Stein* Hugo Black: A Biography. By Roger K. Newman.** Pan­ theon Books. 632 pp. 1994. $30.00. Hugo Black was one of the most enigmatic of a notably enig­ matic generation of New Deal Southern Democrats that rose to national power in the thick of this century. Lyndon Johnson had his towering contradictions, but even those did not surpass Black's. The same man who joined the Ku Klux Klan in his na­ tive Alabama later joined the Warren Court's rulings ordering an end to desegregation. The same man hailed as the Supreme Court's greatest civil libertarian wrote the Court's opinion up­ holding the confinement of Japanese-Americans during World War II, one of the greatest civil liberties disasters in our history. The same man who came to the Court to prevent the judiciary from frustrating the will of the majority became its most ardent defender of the rights of the minority.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 35 Issue 3 Practitioner's Guide to the 1998-1999 Supreme Court Term Spring 2000 You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments Paul Finkelman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul Finkelman, You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Supreme Court Appointments, 35 Tulsa L. J. 473 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol35/iss3/2 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Finkelman: You Can't Always Get What You Want: Presidential Elections and Su YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT... : PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS Paul Finkelmant The President elected in 2000 could have as many as four quick appointments to the Supreme Court. When the new president takes office, in January, 2001, Justice John Paul Stevens will be 80 and Chief Justice Rehnquist will be 76 years old, both well past retirement age. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have both fought off cancer and on inauguration day they will be 71 and 67 years old, respectively. It is not unreasonable to fear that either or both might have to leave the bench for health reasons. The rest of the Court, on the other hand, is relatively young, ranging from Justice Clarence Thomas who will be 52 to Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy who will both be 64.1 On the other hand, it is also possible that no one will leave the high court in the next four years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Switch in Time That Saved Nine: a Study of Justice Owen Roberts's Vote in West Coast Hotel Co
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons CUREJ - College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal College of Arts and Sciences 2012 The Switch In Time That Saved Nine: A Study of Justice Owen Roberts's Vote in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish Brian T. Goldman Student, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/curej Part of the American Politics Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Goldman, Brian T., "The Switch In Time That Saved Nine: A Study of Justice Owen Roberts's Vote in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" 01 January 2012. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania, https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/150. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/curej/150 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Switch In Time That Saved Nine: A Study of Justice Owen Roberts's Vote in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish Abstract During President Roosevelt's first term in office (1932-1936) the Supreme Court ruled several landmark New Deal measures unconstitutional; a handful of these decisions were by 5-4 margins. It all changed in 1937, when swing Justice Owen Roberts voted to affirm a minimum wage statute in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish; a year earlier he had voted against minimum wage legislation in a similar case. This "switch in time that saved nine" has no established consensus that explains its occurrence. Some have posited that President Roosevelt's "court packing" legislation forced Roberts's hand, while other have argued that public opinion caused Roberts's swing in jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]