Wartime requires the government to make difficult decisions, which have long-term consequences. However, decisions made in challenging circumstances can often be controversial. Actions related to the court’s decision on Korematsu v. United States (1944) case are examples of conflicting and long-debated choices made during wartime. Although threatening circumstances and measures for the country’s protection dictated the court’s decision, it caused an ambiguous reaction and long-term negative consequences.
Threats to the US were present from several countries during World War II. The attack on Pearl Harbor by one of them – Japan – led to President Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 9066. The Order required the population of Japanese origin living on the west to leave their jobs and homes and move to isolated camps (Nagata et al., 2019). In this way, the government wanted to reduce the threat of espionage and data transfer to Japan and protect the population. Japanese-American Fred Korematsu did not want to obey the Order, remained at his home, and was arrested for these actions (Korematsu v. United States, 1944). The case has been taken to court for a detailed review and decision.
The court’s consideration of the case and decision-making was complex, as it affected the rights of minorities. The case’s critical question was, “Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?” (Korematsu v. United States, 1944, para. 2). By a majority decision of 6-3, the Order 9066 on the displacement of the population of Japanese descent was recognized as legal. The judges explained that such a conclusion was not dictated by racial prejudice but by a strategic wartime necessity. Those who disagreed with such a judgment believed it supported racism and violated the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans (Korematsu v. United States, 1944). The decision was significant, and the case was discussed and challenged many more times after the war ended.
Despite the emphasis on strategic necessity, the case is significantly built around race issues. When implementing Order 9066, the age and citizenship of people were not considered, only Japanese descent (Nagata et al., 2019). No such action was taken against individuals with German and Italian roots, whose countries of origin also acted as aggressors during the war (Nagata et al., 2019). The court’s decision had significant implications for the population as it negatively affected the Japanese Americans and caused group trauma (Nagata et al., 2019). Moreover, the decision demonstrated that the government could ignore the interests of individuals of a certain race if it considers such a measure necessary. This situation poses a threat to all minorities living in the United States. Notably, additional investigations conducted in the 1980s revealed no evidence of a threat from the population of Japanese origin (Nagata et al., 2019). Consequently, the Order and the court’s decision were an excessive and unfair reaction to the events of Pearl Harbor.
Thus, Korematsu v. United States, where Fred Korematsu wanted to prove the illegality of the resettlement of the Japanese population, justified the government’s decision to dislocate people to isolated camps. The judges reasoned that such a measure met wartime needs and could provide security. However, in long-term consideration, their decision has more negative consequences. Moreover, as shown by additional investigations, such measures were not necessary. Therefore, the court decision was unfair, even if the intentions were to ensure security.
References
Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944). Web.
Nagata, D. K., Kim, J. H. J., & Wu, K. (2019). The Japanese American wartime incarceration: Examining the scope of racial trauma. American Psychologist, 74(1), 36–48. Web.