Mock Trial: Korematsu v. United States

Does the United States government have the legitimate power to detain people it deems, unilaterally, to threaten national security?

In the early years of the US involvement in the Second World War, the United States government feared an attack on American shores from the Japanese. Although no Japanese-American was ever indicted or convicted of espionage or treason, the American military feared that the presence of this “enemy race” could bring immediate danger to the West Coast, which was within range of Japanese air strikes.

            In February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt issued executive orders, later made law by Congress, authorizing the Secretary of War to designate military areas from which anyone who posed a threat to the US military operations or to national security could be excluded, and creating a branch of the executive responsible for removing and relocating such people. Prior to relocation, people of Japanese descent were subject to a curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.

            More than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, most of whom were born in the United States, were interned ender these executive orders.

In 1943, in the case of Hirabayashi v. United States, the United States Supreme Court upheld parts of those executive orders.

In 1942, rather than be interned, Fred Korematsu, who was an American born citizen of the United States, moved out of his home town, changed his name, underwent some facial surgery, and claimed to be a Mexican-American. Korematsu had attempted to join the US Army early in 1941, but had been turned down because of poor health, and so went to work in the defense industry.

When he was found in a restricted area (still working in a munitions factory) in

1942,  he was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. He was then paroled and interned in Arizona.

            Korematsu appealed his conviction in 1943, and the case reached the Supreme Court in 1944.

            Your assignment is to hear Korematsu’s appeal as the Supreme Court of the United States. Rely on your judgement, your knowledge of the Constitution, and the upon the precedent in Hirabayashi.

It is expected that attorneys and witnesses will supplement these basic facts with research on the circumstances surrounding the internment of Japanese-Americans. All outside research must be properly cited, using footnote format. AT LEAST ONE SOURCE CITED HERE MUST BE A BOOK OTHER THAN A REFERENCE WORK. Attorneys’ papers missing this research will not be accepted.

Roles

attorneys for United States: (2)

attorneys for Korematsu:(2)

Judges:     

Fred Korematsu

General DeWitt           

Due on the day of the trial

For attorneys: A two-page essay arguing your case. You must argue for or against the constitutionality of the executive orders and the ensuing laws. Assume that Korematsu broke the law – he does not contest that question – argue whether the law can stand. This paper may serve as the basis for your opening statements in class. Some outside research on the circumstances of the case will be necessary

For witnesses: A two-page essay in the form of an “affidavit,” explaining your position. You need not argue over the constitutionality of the law, just describe and explain your behavior.

Due the class meeting after the trial

For Justices: A one paragraph response declaring your opinion in the matter. Present your decision and explain how you came to it.

Procedures:

Meet with your group to review the caseOpening arguments. Attorneys must present a three-minute minimum argument before the court.

questioning of Korematsu (appellant first)

questioning of DeWitt (respondent first)

closing arguments

Justices deliberate

Each student will earn an essay (for the written work) and an oral presentation

grade (for in-class work).