Korematsu v. United States
Overview
Overview
The Court upheld the military's internment of Japanese Americans during WWII as a constitutional exercise of war powers, despite racial classification.
The Facts
Facts
Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen, refused to comply with military exclusion orders removing persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast during World War II. He was arrested and convicted of violating Exclusion Order No. 34. Korematsu appealed, arguing the order violated his constitutional rights.
The Issue
Issue
Does the federal military's authority during wartime justify race-based exclusion orders targeting an entire ethnic group, even when applied to American citizens? Does racial classification in a military exclusion order satisfy strict scrutiny review under the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
The Rules
Rule
All legal restrictions on civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect and must be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny (establishing strict scrutiny standard). Though the Court held this order satisfied it. Military necessity can justify race-based classifications in extreme wartime circumstances, but this reasoning was expressly repudiated in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) as 'objectively unlawful' and inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Application
Analysis
The Court applied strict scrutiny to the race-based exclusion order but found that military necessity during wartime satisfied this demanding standard. Korematsu, a U.S. Citizen, was ordered excluded solely because of his Japanese ancestry, a direct racial classification, yet the Court upheld the order by according substantial deference to military judgments about wartime security needs. Under this framework, the Court effectively subordinated Korematsu's equal protection rights to military authority, establishing that extreme wartime exigency could override ordinary constitutional protections for racial minorities.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld Korematsu's conviction and the constitutionality of the exclusion order. The Court held that pressing public necessity during wartime could justify racial classifications, applying the most deferential judicial review to military decisions. The decision established that race-based governmental action receives strict scrutiny, but the Court found military necessity satisfied even this demanding standard. A holding later criticized and distinguished in subsequent cases.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support