zaro

Has Korematsu Been Overturned?

Published in Legal Precedent History 3 mins read

No, the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu v. U.S. has not been formally overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, though its legal reasoning has been definitively discredited and explicitly repudiated. While Fred Korematsu's personal conviction was vacated, the original Supreme Court precedent itself was never directly reversed.

Understanding the Korematsu Decision

In 1944, during World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Korematsu v. U.S., upheld the conviction of Fred Korematsu for violating an exclusion order that required Japanese Americans to report to internment camps. The Court ruled that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's individual rights, making the forced relocation and internment constitutionally permissible under the extraordinary circumstances of war. This decision remains a highly controversial landmark case in American legal history.

The Overturning of Fred Korematsu's Personal Conviction

It is important to distinguish between the Supreme Court's ruling and Fred Korematsu's individual conviction. On November 10, 1983, a federal judge, Marilyn Hall Patel, in the same San Francisco courthouse where Korematsu had been convicted, overturned his personal conviction. This district court ruling cleared Fred Korematsu's name, acknowledging that the government had withheld critical evidence regarding the lack of military necessity for the internment.

Status of the Supreme Court Precedent

Despite the vacating of Fred Korematsu's personal conviction, the 1944 Supreme Court decision itself was not overturned by this or any subsequent court. It remained on the books as a "discredited precedent," meaning that while it still existed, its legal and moral authority was severely undermined.

For decades, legal scholars and civil rights advocates called for Korematsu's formal reversal. While the Supreme Court never directly revisited the case to issue an overturning opinion, it finally addressed Korematsu explicitly in a later ruling.

In the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii, which concerned a travel ban, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:

"The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and loathsome. Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under our Constitution.'"

While this statement forcefully disavowed the reasoning and outcome of Korematsu, it did not constitute a formal "overturning" in the traditional sense, as Trump v. Hawaii was not a case directly challenging Korematsu or its facts. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's strong repudiation effectively stripped Korematsu of any remaining legal legitimacy.

Key Distinctions

Aspect Status
Fred Korematsu's Conviction Overturned by a federal district court in 1983, clearing his name.
Supreme Court Precedent Not formally overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court case, but discredited and disavowed in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).

Why the Distinction Matters

The legal distinction between a conviction being vacated and a Supreme Court precedent being overturned is significant. When a conviction is vacated, it nullifies the specific finding of guilt against an individual. When a Supreme Court precedent is overturned, it means the higher court has formally reversed its prior legal conclusion, setting a new legal standard for all future cases. While Korematsu remains an existing Supreme Court opinion, its principles and legal reasoning are no longer considered valid or applicable, largely due to the forceful condemnation in Trump v. Hawaii.

For further information on this landmark case, you can visit the U.S. Courts website.