  
	 The vagaries of consent
  
	Justice Hugo Black's Majority Opinion: "It should 
	be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil 
	rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.  That is not 
	to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional.  It is to say 
	that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny.  
	Pressing public necessity 
	may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions, racial antagonism 
	never can."
 
  Justices Owen J. 
	Roberts, Frank Murphy, and Robert H. Jackson dissented. | 
    
     Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 
	(1944) A 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. Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt.  
	The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need 
	to protect against espionage outweighed
	Toyosaburo Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans 
	of Japanese descent. (The Court limited its decision to the validity of the 
	exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons 
	of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the 
	detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, 
	and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding.") 
	Korematsu v. United States
	has been very 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 official notice, conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case's value as precedent 
	for interning citizens. 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 
	met that standard. 
	 |