A couple surprises in this reading of Korematsu vs. United States.
First, the majority opinion doesn’t technically defend the Constitutionality of internment camps (though you could argue that it effectively does so) but rather that of the military exclusion order, under which the petitioner, Korematsu, was actually charged. (The exclusion order prevented him from living where he did, and he had refused to leave that area.)
Second, I was intrigued by Justice Jackson’s dissent. He says that just because a military order might be necessary and reasonable as an act of war (which is beyond the court’s purview to determine) doesn’t mean it should be adjudged as lawful. He thinks by upholding the actual constitutionality of these orders the court enshrines in the law a dangerous principle.
Third, I was surprised that more wasn’t made of the fact, by dissenting justices, that Italian and German were not affected by these military orders in the restricted zone but only Japanese Americans, with whom we were also at war. Perhaps it was understood the populations of the latter were smaller.
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 