Learning Activity: Korematsu v. United States (1944), Supreme Court Decision

Provide students with the following summary of the United States Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944). Ask small groups of students to prepare legal briefs of the case by:

  1. summarizing the facts of the case
  2. identifying the constitutional issues involved in the case
  3. explaining the Court’s decision in the case and its reasons for that decision
  4. discussing the dissenting opinions and the justices’ reasons for dissenting.


Korematsu v. United States (1944)*

Facts
Between 1941 and 1945, there were strong anti-Japanese feelings in the United States due to the war with Japan. In May 1942, Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in federal court of “knowingly remaining in a designated military area in San Leandro, California.” His action violated Exclusion Order #34 and Executive Order #9066 of 1942, which had been issued to protect the West Coast from acts of espionage and sabotage. The Acts required all Japanese-Americans living in restricted areas to go to inland relocation centers. Korematsu believed the order violated his constitutional rights.
Issue
Whether Executive Order #9066 of 1942 violated Korematsu’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law and the Fifth Amendment right to life, liberty, and property; and whether, because of the special circumstance of the world war, Congress or the President had the power to violate Korematsu’s constitutional rights.
Opinion
In a rare decision, 6-3, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an entire race could be labeled a “suspect classification,” meaning that the government was permitted to deny the Japanese their constitutional rights because of military considerations. Because a number of Japanese may have been disloyal, the military felt that complete exclusion of persons of Japanese ancestry from certain areas was essential during wartime. The Court ruled that such exclusion was not beyond the war powers of Congress and the President since their interest in national security was “compelling.” (Editor’s note: Justice Robert Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion in this case.)

(* Taken from: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Case Study Review for U.S. History and Government, Project P.A.T.C.H. of the Northport-East Northport U.F.S.D.and the Law, Youth and Citizenship Program of the New York State Bar Association and State Education Department, 1999, p. 23. Contact www.lycny.org for copies of this publication.)

Back to Top