The Court relied upon that case as support for its refusal to rule that Congress and the president exceeded their war powers in excluding persons of Japanese descent from the West Coast in Korematsu. 1774 (1943), but the Supreme Court upheld the order as " 'protection against espionage and against sabotage'" and sustained the conviction. This order and a conviction based on it was challenged in Hirabayashi v. curfew on all persons of Japanese ancestry in designated West Coast military areas. Pursuant to the executive order, another order imposed an 8 p.m. The restriction and exclusion orders applied to all enemy Aliens and additionally to American citizens of Japanese ancestry. The entire West Coast and southern Arizona were designated as military zones. Federal law made violation of these orders a crime. The order that Korematsu was convicted of violating was based upon an Executive Order, which authorized the military commander to establish military zones and impose restrictions on activities or order exclusion from those areas in order to protect against Espionage and sabotage. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the circuit court of appeals and was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. 194 (1944), was a controversial 6–3 decision of the Supreme Court that affirmed the conviction of a Japanese American citizen who violated an exclusion order that barred all persons of Japanese ancestry from designated military areas during World War II.įred Toyosaburo Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in federal court for remaining in a designated military area in California contrary to a Civilian Exclusion Order issued by an army general that required persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers as a prelude to mass removal from the West Coast.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |