![]() ![]() Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions racial antagonism never can. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. Ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. ![]() There, the Court held that the executive order and the state laws that followed it were constitutional because they furthered a “military necessity.” In so doing, the Court placed national security above protection of its citizens even with regard to laws “curtail the civil rights of a single racial group.” The Korematsu decision was not overruled by the Supreme Court until 2018. He appealed his conviction, and his case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Korematsu was convicted for disobeying this executive order. View the case on the Constitution Center’s website here.įred Korematsu was a Japanese-American citizen who refused to relocate to one of the detention camps created during World War II by executive order specifically created to detain Japanese Americans. This activity is part of Module 9: The Judicial System and Current Cases from the Constitution 101 Curriculum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |