Hirabayashi v. United States
Hirabayashi v. United States is a significant Supreme Court case that arose during World War II, highlighting the tensions between national security and civil liberties. In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government, driven by fears of espionage and sabotage from Japanese Americans, implemented policies that led to the internment of around 120,000 individuals of Japanese descent, regardless of their citizenship status. Gordon Hirabayashi, a Japanese American student, challenged the government's curfew and internment orders, arguing they were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the curfew, citing the need for national security during wartime and the authority of the government to consider race when it is relevant to that security. While the ruling was unanimous, the justices acknowledged the troubling implications of racial discrimination, with some justices expressing deep concern over the principles of equality and justice. This case, along with its contemporaneous decisions, later became a focal point in discussions about the constitutional protections afforded to individuals and the balance of power in times of crisis. The legacy of Hirabayashi v. United States continues to resonate in contemporary debates regarding civil rights and government action during emergencies.
Hirabayashi v. United States
Date: June 21, 1943
Citation: 320 U.S. 81
Issues: Due process; equal protection; war powers
Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that the exigencies of war justified a military curfew which was applied almost exclusively to Japanese Americans.
After the United States entered into a war against Japan, many Americans feared that Japanese Americans living on the West Coast might engage in subversive activities, especially if there were a bombing raid or an invasion. In addition to racial prejudice, there was a widespread belief that persons of Japanese background in Hawaii had helped prepare for the invasion of Pearl Harbor. At the urging of military and political leaders, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in early 1942 issued Executive Order No. 9066, authorizing the secretary of war to prescribe “military areas” from which any civilians might be excluded, and Executive Order No. 9102, establishing an executive agency for the purpose of interning the estimated 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry, citizens and noncitizens alike. Soon thereafter, the Congress enacted a statute implementing the executive orders.
Acting under presidential authority, General John DeWitt of the Western Defense Command imposed a curfew on all persons of Japanese ancestry and also on German and Italian nationals. In addition, he ordered every Japanese American to report to a local civilian assembly center for assignment to an internment camp. Gordon Hirabayashi, a Japanese American student at the University of Washington, intentionally disobeyed both the curfew and the reporting order. For these two offenses, he was prosecuted and given concurrent three-month sentences.
By a 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court held that the curfew was constitutionally permitted under the combined congressional and presidential war powers. Because of the concurrent sentences, the Court refused to examine the constitutionality of the relocation program. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone emphasized the gravity of the national emergency and found justification for suspecting Japanesee Americans of continued loyalty to Japan. Although Stone wrote that racial discrimination was “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,” he noted that the Fifth Amendment contained no equal protection clause and concluded that the principles of due process did not prohibit the government from taking race into account when relevant to national security in time of war. In upholding the curfew, Stone declared that the Court was not deciding whether or not more severe policies would be acceptable.
Three members of the Court wrote concurring opinions that narrowed the scope of the decision. Justice Frank Murphy, who almost registered a dissent, wrote, “Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and our ideals.” In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the justices voted six to three to approve of the exclusion and reporting orders. Ironically, the Hirabayashi and Korematsu opinions would later be quoted to support the idea that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment includes an equal protection requirement.
Bibliography
Irons, Peter. “Gordon Hirabayashi v. United States.” In The Courage of Their Convictions. New York: Free Press, 1988.