"Executive Order 9066 was finally withdrawn in 1976 by President Ford. In 1980, the government convened a special commission, called the "Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians," to investigate the internment/relocation. The Commission's report, issued in 1982, and titled Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, found that the relocation and internment were "not justified by militarynecessity" and were based on "prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." See also, 50 U.S.C. App. 1989a(a).
Also in the early 80's, Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, and Fred Korematsu filed petitions for writs of error coram nobis. Essentially, this means that they wanted their convictions vacated on the groundsthat the facts presented by the government were in error and/or falsified. The courts found that the government had suppressed documents showing that there was, in fact, no threat of espionage or sabotage from the Japanese American community during WWII.
Hirabayashi's exclusion conviction and curfew conviction were vacated on appeal. Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987). Yasui's case was dismissed by the district court upon thegovernment's motion to dismiss the indictment and vacate the conviction, but did not reach the issue of whether Yasui's constitutional rights had been violated. See, Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1985). Yasui appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as untimely; Yasui died before further substantive action was taken on his case. Yasui v. United States, 772 F.2d 1496 (9thCir. 1985); Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591 (9th Cir.1987). Korematsu's conviction was vacated by the district court; the government did not appeal. Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984).
Finally, in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the Congress formally apologized on behalf of the United States and authorized restitution for surviving internees. In particular, the Congress recognized that "agrave injustice has been done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II." 50 U.S.C. App. 1989a(a). In addition, Congress stated that one of the purposes of the Civil Liberties Act was to "discourage the occurrence of similar injustice and violations of civil liberties in the future." 50 U.S.C. App.1989 (6).
In none of the coram nobis cases, however, did the District Courts or the Courts of Appeals address the constitutionality of the conviction(and nor could they). The Supreme Court had already found it constitutional, and a lower court cannot overrule the Supreme Court. Thus, although Hirabayashi's and Korematsu’s convictions were vacated, the constitutionality of the underlying government action remains.
Moreover, congressional legislation cannot remove/overturn a Supreme Court pronouncement on constitutionality (Nor, of course, is there any reason to do so). Accordingly, the exclusion order of whichKorematsu was convicted of violating, and the curfew which Hirabayashi and Yasui violated, are constitutional.
Why is this important? In 1950, not long after the fall of China to communism, Congress passed the McCarran Internal Security Act (repealed in the early '80s), which authorized the attorney general to detain anyone if he believed there was "reasonable ground" to believe that that person was engaged in espionage or sabotage. The Act was, of course, directed at Communists; and it authorized theirinternment during a "national emergency." Note that this language closely tracks that of the Supreme Court’s Japanese American internment cases.
For an example closer to the present, consider the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. At least one Arab Americans was arrested at the airport, apparently because he looked Arab. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Korematsu, this was proper.
Finally, since the relocation derived from an Executive Order, ratified by act of Congress, nothing exists to prevent a future President from reissuing a similar Executive Order.
"Korematsu remains on the pages of our legal and political history. As a legal precedent it is now recognized as having very limited application. As historical precedent, it stands as a constant caution that in times of war or declared military necessity our institutionsmust be vigilant in protecting constitutional guarantees. It stands asa caution that in time of distress the shield of military necessity and national security must not be used to protect governmental actions from close scrutiny and accountability. It stands as a caution that intimes of international hostility and antagonisms our institutions, legislative, executive and judicial, must be prepared to exercise their authority to protect all citizens from the petty fears and prejudices that are so easily aroused." Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984). "
Yes, for the public safety in times of rebellion or invasion according to the Constitution.
American Citizens were confined in those camps. Defend this all day long it still doesn't take away from the fact that it was WRONG!!
That's easy to say in 2002 standing behind the strongest military in the world. In 1941, our Navy was almost taken out and we weren't ready to fight a war and so many expected a Japanese invasion into California. The Japanese successfully invaded China, a country with many more times the population of ours at the time. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.