[Not loaded yet]
12/Fred
7 of the ruling explicitly addresses the question of constitutionality of an order explicitly based on ancestry as already being settled by the Hirabayashi case, deemed acceptable to prevent espionage and sabotage.
8 acknowledges the camps as worse, but acceptable by the same logic.
13/Fred
Korematsu’s case is summarized as that by May of 1942, about six months after Pearl, it was clear that there would be no invasion of the US by Japan.
What’s unsaid but implied here is that arbitrary and extreme measures were not justified if there was no obvious threat.
14/Fred
Sections 10 and 11 form what look like an argument for a rational basis (i.e. the government didn’t have time to figure out who was loyal). This is not a criterion considered for “strict scrutiny” which should have been the level applied for an obvious infringement on protected rights.
May 12, 2025 04:36
