SCOTUS finally overturns infamous Korematsu ruling

ONE OF THE WORST decisions made by the Supreme Court was revoked in the Supreme Court decision rendered today in regards to the Donald Trump Muslim ban.

In the June 26 ruling by the conservative majority and in the dissent by the liberal minority, 1944's  ruling that justified the interment of 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, Korematsu v. United States, was repudiated.

RELATED: A divided Supreme Court upholds Muslm ban

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent the “stark parallels between the reasoning of this case and that of Korematsu v. United States,” 

In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind … Today, the Court takes the important step of finally overruling Korematsu, denouncing it as “gravely wrong the day it was decided.”…This formal repudiation of a shameful precedent is laudable and long overdue. But it does not make the majority’s decision here acceptable or right. By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision apparently took offense and addressed Sotomayor's inference that Trump’s travel ban was the same thing as the internment of Japanese Americans.

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President—the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.

The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: 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 the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).

With that, Roberts' Court formally overturned one of the most shameful decisions rendered by the High Court.

Korematsu was decided after Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American of San Leandro, Calif., refused to relocate to an internment camp. U.S. officials arrested him convicted him for refusing to comply. He eventually fought his conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court — but the Court, in 1944, ruled that Korematsu was violated the executive order 9066 signed by President Frankly Roosevelt and the U.S. acted lawfully in attempting to intern not just him but other Japanese Americans.

Although Korematsu died in 2005, in 2011, the Justice Department issued a formal "confession of error" in the his case, acknowledging that government lawyers lied about the severity of the security threat posed by Japanese Americans.

Ironically, the confession was ordered by the acting solicitor general at the time, Neal Katyal, who represented the challengers to the Muslim ban.

Yesterday (June 26) Korematsu's daughter, Karen Korematsu, issued this statement:

"Yet again, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision. The Muslim travel ban is unjust and singles out individuals due to the religion they practice, similar to Execudtive Order 9066 that unconstitutionally imprisoned my father due to his Japanese ancestry.

"In Korematsu v. United States, the Court ruled against my father, a decision that constitutional scholars, on both sides of the aisle, have continued to criticize. Although the Court overruled my father's case today,  it only has substituted one injustice for another.  

"This decision motivates me more to continue my work as Executive Director of the Fred. T. Korematsu Institute to educate, advocate and protect our civil liberties for all."

____________________________________________________________________________