What is Executive Order 9066?

This is a case of Song v. American government.

KOREMATSU v. United States (1944)

After the outbreak of World War II, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and there has always been prejudice against Asian immigrants on the west coast. Within a few weeks, all Japanese-Americans, whether naturalized or born in the United States, who may be "saboteurs" or "spies" should be moved from the West Bank before the Japanese invasion. Even if there is no evidence that these people pose a threat to the United States. Even the respected columnist walter lippmann told his readers, "No one's constitutional rights include the right to live and do business on the battlefield. He has enough space to exercise his rights in other places. 」

1942 On February 9, 2009/kloc-0, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066(9066), which authorized the Secretary of War to designate a country as a part of a "military zone", expel any or all people, and impose travel restrictions. A few weeks later, General John L. Dewit, who was in charge of the Western Defense Command, designated the entire Pacific coast as a military zone because he suspected that it might be attacked. The curfew began, and Japanese-Americans were first forbidden to leave the area, and then they stayed in the area. The only way for Japanese-Americans to obey these contradictory orders is to obey the inland resettlement centers.

In this resettlement plan, 65,438+065,438+00,000 men, women and children were sent to places basically similar to prison camps, which was the most serious violation of individual rights by the Coalition government in the history of the country. The whole action is based on the assumption of racial discrimination, that is, anyone of Japanese descent is a traitor.

There is an old saying in wartime that the law does not expressly stipulate that the Supreme Court, which has only recently begun to play a greater role in protecting non-mainstream rights, is unwilling to interfere with the means of war that the government deems necessary. The court heard three cases to test the constitutionality of evacuation orders. In the first case (Hirabayashi v. the federal government of the United States) (1943), the court upheld the legality of the curfew, but evaded the ruling with wider impact on the relocation.

In the second case, Korematsu v. the federal government of the United States, the court can no longer ignore the core issue, that is, whether loyal citizens can be immediately placed in concentration camps just because of their race. Although most judges of the court agreed with Judge Black that military necessity could explain relocation, three members of the court, frank murphy, Owen J Roberts and robert H Jackson, disagreed. Justice Murphy's opposition and his frank handling of what he called "legalization of racial discrimination" are all included here.

On the same day, the court authorized the writ of habeas corpus to endo without objection, and the loyalty of a citizen was clearly established. The court's judgments on Lin Ping and Songshi cases were criticized by many civilized liberals and scholars from the beginning, and they have been universally condemned since then.

After the war, detention also troubled the conscience of the country. 1948, Congress took the first step of amendment, making the Japanese-American Repatriation Claims Act effective and providing financial assistance to those who lost their houses and businesses because of this order. 1980, Congress raised the issue of detention again. This time, some witnesses testified about their sufferings and psychological trauma, which was the first time for many of them. According to the report received, individual justice was denied (1983), which condemned the relocation because it could not be explained by military necessity, and concluded that the decision of the Supreme Court "will be declared invalid in the history of the court. 」