{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Case Briefs- Civil and Constitutional Law Part 1

That is known as the strict scrutiny standard o in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of Japanese ancestry from areas that were deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. o It didn't require any evidence that there was a security risk. The law was based solely on race and national origin. The military started moving Japanese- Americans off the West Coast into concentration camps. o Over 100,000 were moved. Korematsu (who had been born in the US) refused to go. He was arrested and charged with violating the law. The Trial Court convicted Korematsu. He appealed. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction. Korematsu appealed. The US Supreme Court upheld the conviction. o The US Supreme Court noted that laws that create race- based classification are automatically suspect, and will not be considered constitutional unless the government can show an extremely important reason for the law, and show that the goal cannot be achieved through any less discriminatory alternative. • That is known as the strict scrutiny standard. o In this case, the Court found that the law did meet the strict scrutiny standard, and so was constitutional. • "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online