Post

21/Fred In section 20 the court flat out denies that it is ruling on the internment of a citizen based solely on ancestry - claimed as a “clear” ruling without actually specifying which ruling. It does say that because we were at war with Japan it was justified to act solely on ancestry.

22/Fred Justice Frankfurter’s concurrence is brief, basically re-emphasizing the Hirabayashi decision. Ultimately he just defers to the executive, which seems at odds with his acknowledgement that military action is subject to judicial review in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co. (1919).

23/Fred Justice (Owen) Roberts wrote the first dissent, opening with that the “…facts exhibit a clear violation of constitutional rights.” It was a 6-3 decision, and each of the three dissenting wrote a separate dissent. Roberts goes into detail on the sequence of events for his argument.

24/Fred The Roberts dissent, in short, asserts what the ruling rejects in that Korematsu was caught between two contradictory orders to both leave and stay. It also disagrees with the ruling that the order to go to the camps and the order to not remain are distinct.

25/Fred Roberts also disputed that Korematsu was not allowed to contest a dubiously constitutional law and was expected to comply and be imprisoned before being able to challenge it. Not clear what this addresses, presumably the court actions before certiorari was granted?

26/Fred Justice William “Frank” Francis Murphy’s dissent comes second, and just bluntly calls the action in the “abyss of racism.” He acknowledges military expertise but calls out that no martial law had been declared and that “military necessity” does not overrule rights without a reason.

28/Fred Murphy, in his dissent, further argues that there was no evidence of an impending doom that justified the “most sweeping deprivation of constitutional rights in the history of this nation” except under martial law, which was not declared. If an invasion was imminent, maybe do that first?

29/Fred Murphy, LTC US Army (ret), further notes that there was no evidence to justify that those sent to the camps were disloyal. Even when many served in the 442nd the orders persisted, so Murphy’s point that it was always just about racism seems obvious. www.army.mil/article-amp/...