Originally posted by @whodey to KazetNagorra
Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems.
Too bad on one asked SCOTUS.
Maybe they should have a hotline we can all.
Progs are such a joke, they don't even make it hard anymore.
"Just like locking up Japanese Americans it seems. Too bad on one asked SCOTUS."
FALSE. The US Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 9066 was constitutional.
"Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme
Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered
Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional."
"The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been controversial.
Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983,
after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis.]
In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu's original conviction)
because in Korematsu's original case, the government had knowingly submitted false
information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court's decision.
The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned, although, in 2011, the
Department of Justice filed an official notice conceding that the then Solicitor General's
defense of the internment policy had been in error. However, the Court's opinion remains
significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny
standard to racial discrimination by the government, and for being one of only a handful
of cases in which the Court held that the government had met that standard.
Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to
Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example
of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon", a term for those cases which are so flawed that
they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making "