Finally, the Supreme Court ruled on four important cases regarding the constitutionality of decisions made by the executive and legislative branches. In 1943, it upheld the legalities of curfews placed on Japanese Americans during wartime in both the Hirabayashi and Yasui cases. It also upheld the military detention process in Korematsu versus the United States. In 1944, with the Ex Parte Endo case, it finally found that the government could not detain loyal U.S. citizens, effectively ending incarcerations.
“…But Korematsu still stands for that very dangerous proposition that the military can exercise control over civilians, number one. Number two, it stands for certainly the dangerous precedent that civilian authorities can just delegate outright to the military the authority to take whatever acts it deems necessary, and that civilian authorities, the President, Congress, whatever, (can) totally give up their Constitutional authority to protect the citizenry. The other proposition it still stands for is, and probably the most dangerous one as far as I'm concerned, is that the courts can absolutely relieve themselves of any responsibility for making sure the Constitution protects us as civilians. In Korematsu, if you read the opinion, the court basically said that the military thought that there was military necessity, and it is not for us to question the wisdom of that military judgment because the military's the wisest authority during time of war. And there was tremendous, if not total, deference to General DeWitt's opinion that it was necessary to intern Japanese Americans. We rely on our court system to come in and say it's okay for the government to do this and it's not okay for them to do that, and not to wholesale just agree with the government's actions just because the government thought it was right to do at the time.”
Lorraine B. Densho Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times
From issue 2/2/42, page 4
denshopd-i70-00001
So, for almost two long years the Supreme Court also failed to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.
“…But Korematsu still stands for that very dangerous proposition that the military can exercise control over civilians, number one. Number two, it stands for certainly the dangerous precedent that civilian authorities can just delegate outright to the military the authority to take whatever acts it deems necessary, and that civilian authorities, the President, Congress, whatever, (can) totally give up their Constitutional authority to protect the citizenry. The other proposition it still stands for is, and probably the most dangerous one as far as I'm concerned, is that the courts can absolutely relieve themselves of any responsibility for making sure the Constitution protects us as civilians. In Korematsu, if you read the opinion, the court basically said that the military thought that there was military necessity, and it is not for us to question the wisdom of that military judgment because the military's the wisest authority during time of war. And there was tremendous, if not total, deference to General DeWitt's opinion that it was necessary to intern Japanese Americans. We rely on our court system to come in and say it's okay for the government to do this and it's not okay for them to do that, and not to wholesale just agree with the government's actions just because the government thought it was right to do at the time.”
Lorraine B. Densho Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times
From issue 2/2/42, page 4
denshopd-i70-00001
So, for almost two long years the Supreme Court also failed to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.