Chris E. answered • 11/25/19
History and Writing Tutor with J.D. & M.A.
To give you a general sense of things, I'll go over the main points of the decision. Keep in mind the context of the decision (WWII) and the subsequent interpretation of this case and the apology issued to Korematsu. This should give you an indication of why the justices ruled the way they did and why this case is so controversial.
In this case, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) applied the most rigid scrutiny to its analysis of Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 because there is a classification based on race - all persons of Japanese ancestry. Therefore, the burden of proof fell to the government to justify the existence of the restriction.
Like the curfew order in Hirabayashi, SCOTUS reasoned that there was a pressing public necessity to justify the Exclusion Order. The government defended the order by citing concerns about espionage and sabotage, and while it could not be certain who was disloyal among Japanese-Americans, the government argued that all Japanese-Americans should be treated the same. The government does not have the resources to determine who was loyal during the war. Justice Black in the majority opinion deferred to the military by holding that the exclusion was NOT based on race but because of military concern. The court goes on to say that "We cannot - by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight - now say that at that time these actions were unjustified."
Justice Murphy's dissent points out a number of flaws in the majority's analysis. He makes clear that he does not overrule military decisions lightly but that constitutional rights should not always submit to military necessity. Here, Japanese-Americans will be deprived of their procedural due process rights by not having an opportunity to have a hearing to determine their loyalty. Also, there is no clear indication that Japanese-Americans pose as a special menace compared to other groups. Most of this is based on "misinformation, half-truths and insinuations." Independent studies by experts in the matter have not found evidence supporting the government's position. Moreover, no specific examples of disloyalty of the kind feared were presented to the court. Justice Murphy also questions whether the issue of spying cannot be resolved by other military branches or the FBI.
In Ex parte Endo, decided the same day as Korematsu, SCOTUS held that continued detention of Japanese Americans was unwarranted. As noted by the Court, "[a] citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind, not of race, creed, or color."
