Japanese Relocation Camps

Here is a paper that I wrote on Japanese Internment Camps a few years ago. It is based upon the Supreme Court case of Korematsu vs. The United States.

Korematsu vs. The United States: A Clear Step To Safety or A Vote For Discrimination
Joseph Palombo
March 1, 1996

It was a dark time for the world. It was a dark time for the United States of America. It was a dark time for Japanese Americans. It was a dark time for all Americans. Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, an American citizen by birth, was subject to many racially discriminating orders, prescribed by the United States government and military. The orders that all people of Japanese decent were bound by, were directed towards one race of people, the Japanese. Were Mr. Korematsu and the Japanese Americans of the West Coast denied there civil rights? Were they denied due process of law? Were the binding orders of the government directed only at one race of people for safety, or because of racial vindictiveness? Were the racist actions taken by the United States government necessary? Was the evacuation of all people of Japanese decent on the West Coast reasonable, let alone necessary? Is there any precedent, that will keep this from happening again?

The problems for Japanese Americans began in December, 1941. World War II was raging in Europe. Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was bombed by the Japanese. From then on the American government and military feared invasion by the Japanese. The military feared that spying and sabotage to the military would hinder its defense of the United States. To minimize the possibility of espionage and sabotage, the government ordered a curfew from eight o'clock pm to six o'clock am, for all people of Japanese decent. The curfew was helping the defense, but General Dewitt was not satisfied with it's progress. To help secure the nation's defense, the government passed Executive Order Number 9066. This order contained another order proclaimed by General Dewitt of the United States Armed Forces. This order was named Civil Exclusion Order Number 34. The order stated that "as of May 9, 1942 all people of Japanese decent should be excluded from the military areas of San Leandro and Oakland California." (5, pg. 51)

Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen of the United States by birth, was apprehended and questioned by the police on May 30, 1942 in San Leandro, California. Korematsu was asked for identification and he handed in a card that identified him as "Clyde Sarah, with the lettering sloppily changed." (5, pg. 153-154) Korematsu was told that he was being arrested in violation of an Act of Congress, written on March 21, 1941 that states, "Whoever shall enter, remain in, leave, or commit any act in any military area or military zone, prescribed under the authority of an executive order of the President, by the Secretary of War or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War, contrary to the order of the Secretary of War or any such military commander shall, if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order, and that his act was in violation thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for not more than one year or both for each offense." (4, pg. 51-52) Korematsu proceeded to the San Francisco district court and was found guilty. The court was obligated to sentence Korematsu to one year in jail, but if they did, he would be in violation of Civil Exclusion Order number 34. If Fred Korematsu was jailed in San Francisco, he would be violating the order, because it ordered all Japanese Americans out of that area. Since the court had to sentence him, it fined him one thousand dollars bail and he was sent to the Tanforan Assembly Center with the other Japanese Americans. He served his sentence after his time at the internment camp.

Korematsu's case was one of three cases involving the Executive Order Number 9066. In the first case, Hirabayashi versus the United States, Mr. Hirabayashi, a Japanese-American, was challenging the constitutionality of the curfew order placed against all Japanese-Americans a few months before Korematsu's arrest. In this case the justices of the Supreme Court voted that the United States government could "take steps if felt necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage." (4, pg 50) This ruling acted as precedent for the ruling in the Korematsu case. Fred Korematsu filed his case to the Federal Appeals court on the basis that this Supreme Court ruling was wrong.

Upon reaching the Federal Appeals Court, Korematsu argued that he had been denied the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law when he and his family had been forced from their home. He also claimed that the Supreme Court ruling on the Hirabayashi case, on which Korematsu's case precedent is based on, was wrong. Korematsu also stated that on the date of his arrest there were conflicting orders to stay put and evacuate. After careful consideration the Appeals court judges upheld the lower court's decision. Although Korematsu's conviction was upheld he fought to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard Korematsu's case (323US214) in October 1944.

The justices, upon careful consideration to all of the facts decided against Korematsu's case six to three. The majority was lead Hugo Black, ex-leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Justice Black stated in his majority opinion, that the acts of curfew and exclusion were necessary to protect the national security and national defense from espionage and sabotage. "We cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that [the Japanese] population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. We cannot say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for believing that in a critical hour such persons could not be isolated and separately dealt with, and constituted a menace to the national defense and safety, which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard against it." (4, pg 54) This statement applauded the United States government for its actions, to provide safety for the citizens. Justice Black called the actions "Unfounded," but he still approved of it. Justice Black and the five other justices in the majority concluded the United States government and military followed every step outlined in the Constitution and other important documents necessary for excluding the Japanese-Americans from certain areas. Another reason they voted against Korematsu is that there were disloyal members of the United States on the West Coast and they felt that the orders were possibly against one specific race, but they stated that, "We are mindful of the hardships imposed by it [Exclusion Order Number 34] upon a large group of American citizens," but "Hardships are a part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. All citizens alike, both in and out of uniform, feel the impact of war in greater of less measure." (4, pg 55) Justice Black also stated that, "Korematsu was not excluded from the military area because of hostility towards him or his race. He was excluded because they were 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." (4, pg 58)

Justice Black also stated that the orders, which Korematsu claimed were conflicting, were not. On May 30, 1942 there were no conflicting orders, according to Black. The two orders which were thought to be conflicting were the order issued March 27, 1942, and Exclusion Order Number 34. The order issued March 27, 1942 stated that all Japanese-Americans were prohibited from leaving their towns until further notice. Exclusion Order Number 34 was the next notice. It stated that as of May 9, 1942 at twelve noon all Japanese Americans were to be evacuated from their homes. These orders were conflicting, since the first one said they could not leave and the second one said they should leave. The first order said that it was in effect until further notice. Since the second order was the "further notice," the orders are not conflicting. Justice Black had very strong views on why Mr. Korematsu's case should not be reversed. These views, although strong and convincing, were not convincing enough for three Supreme Court justices.

Justices Jackson, Roberts and Murphy made up the dissenting opinion. Justice Jackson said that "Korematsu had no choice of who his parents were, and he has not been proven disloyal. If this was not a time of war, than the Supreme Court wouldn't enforce this." (4, pg 59-60) Justice Jackson agreed with Korematsu that his right to due process had been taken away, and that the orders were set specifically against the Japanese. Justice Murphy called the majority decision a "legalization of racism; and martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present." (2, pg 480-481) The dissenting justices felt that the evacuation was not necessary, because there was only a fear of a Japanese attack, not a real attack. They stated that the only time Congress and the military can remove the rights of a citizen are in times of real invasion, not fear of invasion.

The historical significance in this case is very pertinent, because it set precedential standards for many cases to come in the following years. This case set the precedent for the Supreme Court's recognition that the Fifth Amendment clause to due process states that everyone has the equal protection of the laws. Along with that is stated that "a guarantee of equal protection has a substantive limit on the conduct of the national government. This means that equal protection of laws has a limit under certain national government times like during an evasion. This case also set the precedent that any legal restriction on a specific racial or ethnic groups are immediately suspect to interrogation.

This time frame in American history, no matter what your racial or ethnic background is, was a very strange time. The land of brotherhood had brothers fight against themselves. This case demonstrates the stupidity of war and invasion, when friends turn against friends, neighbors against neighbors, and American citizens against American citizens. I know that what we did to the Japanese-Americans was not right. The Executive orders and curfews were extremely based on race. Anyone who feels that they were not should read the books written by Japanese-Americans explaining the pain that they suffered through during this dark age. I wonder why there is so much racism in the world today? I do not think that it helped having Justice Hugo Black, a former head of the racist Ku Klux Klan being a Supreme Court justice. He took away the rights of many Japanese-Americans with his vote against Korematsu. They never had a chance to prove their allegiance to the United States. Why didn't we make him prove that he was not a racist.

Fred Korematsu's case was reopened through a writ of error, coram nobis. In this reopening Judge Patel found that the United States government hid relevant information from the court and they provided misleading information in court papers. Judge Patel overturned Korematsu's conviction and awarded him with $20,000. (3, pg 165) Finally Korematsu's case is completed and the dark time is hopefully behind us to be only studied in the future, not reenacted.