Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Author: Black (majority) Outcome: Government wins ($d = 0$: exclusion order upheld) Concurrences: Frankfurter Dissents: Roberts, Murphy, Jackson
1. Holding ($H_t$)
"We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it." (p. 219)
"Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures." (p. 223)
As constraint on admissible $(w, c)$: The holding permits the exclusion of citizens from military areas based on ancestry if justified by military necessity during wartime. The decision rules that can be admitted must allow for racial classifications when they are linked to pressing public necessity and security concerns. The weight on military judgment and perceived threats must be high enough to override the presumption against racial discrimination.
What the holding does NOT constrain:
- The decision does not address the validity of detention orders or the broader internment program.
- It does not establish a permanent rule for racial classifications outside the context of wartime military necessity.
- It does not determine the legality of other wartime measures that might involve racial discrimination.
2. Fact vector $z_t$
2a. Raw salient facts
- Military necessity: The exclusion was justified by "the gravest imminent danger to the public safety" and the need to prevent espionage and sabotage (p. 218). Favors: government.
- Lack of individual assessment: The exclusion applied to all persons of Japanese ancestry without individual assessments of loyalty (p. 219). Favors: plaintiff.
- Historical context: The order was issued during a state of war with Japan, following the attack on Pearl Harbor (p. 216). Favors: government.
- No evidence of disloyalty: There was no evidence presented that Korematsu was disloyal or posed a threat (p. 218). Favors: plaintiff.
- Racial classification: The exclusion order applied solely based on ancestry, targeting Japanese Americans (p. 214). Favors: plaintiff.
- Military judgment: The military authorities deemed the exclusion necessary, and Congress delegated authority to them (p. 217). Favors: government.
2b. Dimension mapping
| Dimension | Value | Raw fact(s) mapped | Textual basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 Facial classification | High | Racial classification | "all persons of Japanese ancestry" (p. 214) |
| D2 Protected trait | Race | Racial classification | Throughout |
| D3 Intent evidence | Low | Lack of individual assessment | "no evidence of disloyalty" (p. 218) |
| D4 Interest strength | High | Military necessity | "gravest imminent danger" (p. 218) |
| D5 Means-ends fit | Poor | Lack of individual assessment | Applied to all without individual assessments (p. 219) |
| D6 Stigma / caste | High | Racial classification | Exclusion based solely on ancestry (p. 214) |
| D7 Institutional setting | Wartime/emergency | Historical context | "state of war with Japan" (p. 216) |
| D8 Precedent density | Low | — | The case does not rely heavily on prior precedent for its specific context |
Unmapped facts:
- No evidence of disloyalty does not map directly to any dimension but highlights the absence of individualized suspicion, impacting D5 (means-ends fit).
Notable: The Court's emphasis on military necessity and deference to military judgment significantly impacts D4 (interest strength) and D7 (institutional setting), allowing these dimensions to override typical scrutiny applied to racial classifications.
3. Treatment of prior holdings ($\mathcal{F}_t$ update)
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
- Status: Relied on. The Court uses Hirabayashi to support the validity of military orders based on race during wartime.
- Characterization: The Court views Hirabayashi as precedent for upholding racial classifications when linked to military necessity.
- Model interpretation: Reinforces the constraint that military necessity can justify racial discrimination, expanding the feasible set of $(w, c)$ to include wartime racial exclusions.
4. Overruling (constraint removal at cost $C$)
No overruling in this case. The Court does not explicitly overrule any prior decisions but rather extends the reasoning in Hirabayashi to a broader context of exclusion rather than just curfew. The Court does not signal any institutional cost or gradual implementation, as the decision is framed as a wartime necessity.
5. Breadth
Narrow reading (what the Court explicitly holds):
- The exclusion of Japanese Americans from military areas during wartime is constitutional if justified by military necessity.
Broad reading (what the reasoning supports):
- The decision could support broader wartime racial exclusions if deemed necessary by military authorities, potentially extending to other racial groups or contexts.
Breadth ambiguity: The decision leaves open the extent to which military necessity can override civil liberties, creating ambiguity about the limits of such power in future cases.
6. Concurrences / dissents (alternative admissible theories)
Frankfurter (concurrence)
- Alternative constraint structure: Agrees with the majority on the validity of the military order but emphasizes that wartime powers are part of the Constitution.
- Key disagreement: None; concurs fully with the majority's reasoning.
Roberts (dissent)
- Alternative constraint structure: Would impose a constraint against racial discrimination without evidence of individual disloyalty.
- Key disagreement: D1 (facial classification) and D5 (means-ends fit); criticizes the lack of individual assessments and the use of racial ancestry as a basis for exclusion.
Murphy (dissent)
- Alternative constraint structure: Argues for strict scrutiny of racial classifications and rejects the exclusion as based on racial prejudice rather than military necessity.
- Key disagreement: D6 (stigma/caste) and D4 (interest strength); emphasizes the racial discrimination inherent in the order and the lack of immediate threat.
Jackson (dissent)
- Alternative constraint structure: Opposes the use of military orders as a basis for constitutional law, emphasizing the danger of setting a precedent for racial discrimination.
- Key disagreement: D8 (precedent density) and D1 (facial classification); warns against the judicial validation of racial discrimination under military orders.
7. Reasoning revealing implicit weights on dimensions
Military necessity dominates racial equality:
"We cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population" (p. 218).
The Court places a high weight on D4 (interest strength), allowing military necessity to override typical scrutiny of racial classifications.
Deference to military judgment:
"The military authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided inadequate protection and ordered exclusion" (p. 218).
This reflects a high weight on D7 (institutional setting), prioritizing military judgment in wartime.
Lack of individual assessment:
"Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group" (p. 218).
The Court's acceptance of group-based exclusion without individual assessment indicates a low weight on D5 (means-ends fit).