Key Court Cases
Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943)
The Case
The Ruling
Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi was a student at the University of Washington during WWII. He had no intention of following the curfew or the removal order. He turned himself into the FBI and was charged with a misdemeanor for violating the curfew and the exclusion order.
In a unanimous decision, the Court found the implementation of curfews and the president’s executive order to be constitutional. Justice Stone stated, “restrictions on Japanese actions serve an important national interest”. The Court focused on the curfew and deemed it a protective measure.
Stone also justified racial discrimination, stating that “in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a great source of danger than those of a different ancestry.”
Yasui v. U.S. (1943)
The Case
The Ruling
Minoru Yasui was an American citizen who graduated law school at the University of Oregon during WWII. He went on to serve as reservist for the U.S. Army, and worked at the Japanese Consulate in Chicago for a year.
When he moved back to Oregon, he wanted to test the constitutionality of the curfew set in place. In 1942, he stayed out past curfew and turned himself into the police station.
The District Court justice that presided over his case found that the curfew could only apply to aliens. However, due to Yasui’s time working for the Japanese government at the Consulate, he had “forfeited” his citizenship and the curfew did apply to him.
Yasui served as a companion case to Hirabayashi v. U.S. Justice Stone who wrote the opinion of the court determined that curfew and exclusion orders were valid, even as applied to citizens of the U.S.
The Court affirmed his conviction of the misdemeanor, but ordered re-sentencing. The case was remanded back to the district court to determine a sentence.
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
The Case
The Ruling
Fred Korematsu, 23, was an American citizen who worked at his parent’s nursery. Korematsu refused to comply with the evacuation order and hid his identity in order to avoid the internment camps. He was arrested and convicted for violating the order.
Korematsu argued that Executive Order 9066 violated his 5th Amendment rights.
In a 6-3 decision, Fred Korematsu’s conviction was confirmed. Justice Hugo Black wrote in his majority opinion that Korematsu was excluded due to military necessity in a time of war, not because of hostility against his race. The Court relied heavily on the Hirabayashi ruling for this decision.
Justice Frankfurter concurred with the ruling, stating that “martial necessity arising from danger of espionage and sabotage” warranted the evacuation order.
Justice Jackson dissented, arguing that the exclusion order just legitimized racism and violated the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment).
Ex Parte Endo (1944)
The Case
The Ruling
Mitsuye Endo worked as a clerk for the California Department of Motor Vehicles. She was selected as a test case to file a writ of habeas corpus because of her “Americanized” status. She had never been to Japan, didn’t speak any Japanese, and had a brother in the U.S. Army, yet she was still forced into an internment camp. She felt she was being unlawfully detained, as there were no charges brought against her.
She was denied the writ of habeas corpus without explanation.
In an ex parte decision, the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a loyal citizen.
This led to the release of Japanese Americans from their wartime incarceration across the country if they had properly answered the Loyalty Questionnaire questions.
Justice Douglas delivered the opinion stating, “Whatever power the War Relocation Authority may have to detain other classes of citizens, it has no authority to subject citizens who are concededly loyal to its leave procedure.”
Justice Murphy highlights the importance of granting military commanders great discretion in decision-making when it relates the “prosecution and progress of a war.” However, that discretion is limited in the absence of “martial law being declared,” especially when the constitutional rights of Americans are in question.
To determine whether the government can deny a citizen’s constitutional protections because the military says it is a matter of public safety, Murphy writes:
“The judicial test of whether the government, on a plea of military necessity, can validly deprive an individual of any of his constitutional rights is whether the deprivation is reasonably related to a public danger that is so "immediate, imminent, and impending" as not to admit of delay and not to permit the intervention of ordinary constitutional processes to alleviate the danger…Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34…clearly does not meet that test.”
Justice Frank Murphy’s dissenting opinion in Korematsu v. U.S.