|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
 |
High Court Commemorates Korematsu Case
On August 13, 2009, the California Court of Appeal commemorated the 65th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Korematsu v. United States. Nearly 300 people gathered at the Riverside Court of Appeal to witness the re-creation of the historic oral arguments presented in the original 1944 case. California Court of Appeal Justice Manuel A. Ramirez and six of his associates presided over the event. The courthouse was decorated with various photographs, artworks and depictions of life at the concentration camps for Japanese Americans during World War II. People from all over Southern California and even farther attended. Japanese American internment survivors and lawyers made up the majority of the mixed audience. As the courtroom did not fit everybody, others were put into different rooms and viewed via monitors. The Korematsu v. United States case challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, the law that ordered the removal of Americans of Japanese ancestry from the west coast. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, 110,000 Japanese Americans were to be sent to "relocation centers" as a result of EO 9066. Toyosaburo Fred Korematsu, a U.S.-born citizen, knowingly disobeyed this mandate and was quickly arrested. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Korematsu took his case to court. He lost and appealed to the highest courts of the judicial system. In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the evacuation and internment of Japanese Americans was justified by national security and military necessity. In doing so, the court established the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review, which holds that government discrimination on the basis of race must be justified by a compelling government interest, must be narrowly tailored, and must use the least restrictive means. University of California, Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky presented the testimony of Fred Korematsu’s attorneys. The dialogue was well rehearsed among the justices, appellant and respondents. Chemerinsky maintained a controlled, mellow tone. He began with repeating that "Race can never be the basis for taking away liberties, period... Race cannot measure loyalties." Chemerinky argued that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional because it was conducted without due process and both liberties and property were taken. The due process clause and equal rights clause were violated. These were identified as civil rights that are to be guaranteed to all American citizens. Chapman University Law School Dean John Eastman represented the government, and argued that the order was not based on race. Eastman argued that America was not racist; it was because of military necessity. The Japanese Americans were new Americans; they were only one or two generations away from being Japanese-born citizens. Their national origin made them suspects of espionage during wartime Although the matters were serious during the actual trial in 1944, there was a sense of less tension in today's court. Chuckles and occasional laughter sparked throughout the court. The outcome of the case is well-known, but it was not the acting and settings that made this day significant. It was the recognition of a historical case. After the appellant's closing argument, the Justices read the decisions of the past justices who ruled this case. Of course, it was a loss for Fred Korematsu. Personal histories were delivered by Karen Korematsu-Haigh, daughter of Fred Korematsu, Judge Kayashima, and George Maeda. It was an emotional moment as many tears were shed by Korematsu-Haigh. She said her father was truly and utterly disappointed, as he believed so much in the United States Constitution. "He loved hot dogs and baseball." Was he not American? Perhaps the most shocking reveal was that Fred Korematsu did not tell his daughter of his historically significant case. She found out during a friend's oral report in high school. The event also afforded Deans Chemerinsky and Eastman an opportunity to talk about what happened after the case. In particular, the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was cited, which ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Also cited was the late U.S. District Court Judge Robert Takasugi’s ruling that invalidated a portion of The Patriot Act, on grounds that it deprived the defendants of due-process rights because they were not given a chance to rebut the terrorist allegations before their group was placed on the list. Both Justice Manuel Ramirez and UCI Dean Erwin Chemerinsky paid tribute to pioneer Judge Robert Takasugi, who had a concurrent memorial service in Los Angeles. This year also marks the 25th anniversary of Korematsu v. United States II, the decision which vacated Fred Korematsu’s conviction. In the 1980s, Fred Korematsu returned to the courts, challenging the earlier decision through a writ of coram nobis. In the second Korematsu v. United States case, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel held, "There is substantial support in the record that the government deliberately omitted relevant information and provided misleading information in papers before the court" — information that was critical to the Supreme Court's original decision in 1944. In particular, the government suppressed information that their stated military justification for the exclusion and internment of Japanese Americans was, in the words of Department of Justice officials writing during the war, based on "willful historical inaccuracies and intentional falsehoods." After the courtroom presentations and the closing remarks of Justice Ramirez, Korematsu-Haigh's words still lingered. "People didn't talk about camp." Even though her father never spoke much of the case, "he had always wanted to reopen the case because he believed in the Constitution." Justice Ramirez mentioned a number of reasons why the Korematsu v. United States case as chosen for reenactment. It was Justice John Gabbert’s 100th birthday and the 65th anniversary of the trial. Although these were indeed significant, the primary reason remains prominent: the injustices of the past are never to be repeated, as the United States must be a progressive nation. The Constitution is a "Constant"tution as it changes with time, ultimately bettering the country.
Other Recent Readings of Interest
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
