Korematsu Case Law

Moreover, the fact that this case was not over turned even though it was recognized as a gross mistake is interesting in itself. Forty years after the fact in the case of Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.supp. 1406 (N.D. Cal. 1984), Korematsu’s writ of coram nobis was granted. A writ of coram nobis allows a court to correct the error of fact in an original judgment. This eradicated Korematsu’s previous conviction. Judge Marilyn Patel concluded that the writ was granted on the grounds that “there was substantial support in the record that the government deliberately omitted relevant information and provided misleading information in papers before the court”. (Ducat, 204). Judge Patel overturned the Korematsu’s prior conviction on factual error on any error of law in the 1944 ruling. In August of 1988,

United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). In this case the President’s executive orders come into question as well, but instead of being based on the violation of the person not relocating, it is focused on the violation of a curfew. The court upheld that the executive order was, as well, necessary as a protective measure in a time of war. Because of this the president 's orders and the implementation of a curfew on Japanese Americans in wartime were decided to be constitutional. The court claims that “In determining validity of regulations imposing curfew on persons of Japanese ancestry in military area created under authority of Executive Order, the regulations, under the circumstances, were measures for purpose of safeguarding the military area, at time of threatened air raids and invasion by Japanese forces, from danger of sabotage and espionage.” 18 U.S.C.A. s 97a; Executive Order February 19, 1942, No. 9066; U.S.C.A.Const. arts. 1, 2. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S. Ct. 1375, 87 L. Ed. 1774 (1943). This is similar reasoning as in the case of