Im probably not fully understanding this, but can anyone help clarify this distinction for me?
“the statute the Supreme Court upheld in Korematsu merely made it a crime to violate an exclusion order; it didn’t affirmatively authorize the exclusion.”
Im probably not fully understanding this, but can anyone help clarify this distinction for me?
“the statute the Supreme Court upheld in Korematsu merely made it a crime to violate an exclusion order; it didn’t affirmatively authorize the exclusion.”
Interesting, I definitely need to read Ex Parte Endo but I’m pretty confused why the same Court that says the exclusion orders are constitutional and can’t be violated (in Korematsu) would say the very opposite (in Endo) just because the plaintiffs complied with the order in 1 case but not the other
Fred Korematsu was arrested because he did not report as purportedly ordered. Years later on 11/10/83 with extended family members present in court, Korematsu vs U.S. was overturned, by Presiding Judge Marilyn Patel in the Northern District of California on a Writ.
Oh interesting, can a lower court overturn a Supreme Court case like that? I thought there was some (very disingenuous) language in Trump v Hawaii where the Court officially overturned Korematsu
Im probably not fully understanding this, but can anyone help clarify this distinction for me?
“the statute the Supreme Court upheld in Korematsu merely made it a crime to violate an exclusion order; it didn’t affirmatively authorize the exclusion.”
Aren’t these 2 things effectively the same?
Not really; folks who complied with the exclusion and *then* challenged their detention on the ground that it was unlawful eventually won.
Interesting, I definitely need to read Ex Parte Endo but I’m pretty confused why the same Court that says the exclusion orders are constitutional and can’t be violated (in Korematsu) would say the very opposite (in Endo) just because the plaintiffs complied with the order in 1 case but not the other
Fred Korematsu was arrested because he did not report as purportedly ordered. Years later on 11/10/83 with extended family members present in court, Korematsu vs U.S. was overturned, by Presiding Judge Marilyn Patel in the Northern District of California on a Writ.
Oh interesting, can a lower court overturn a Supreme Court case like that? I thought there was some (very disingenuous) language in Trump v Hawaii where the Court officially overturned Korematsu