Korematsu v United State Case

This article discusses the Korematsu v United State case, which upheld President Roosevelt's order to create 'armed areas' where Japanese-Americans were not allowed. It explores the background, analysis, evaluation, and reasoning behind the case, as well as the impact it had on American law and society.

AMERICAN LAW AND SOCIETY

Korematsu v United State Case
Background of the case:
About 10 weeks after the United States entered the Second World War, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. The request approved the
Secretary of War and the army to deploy people individuals from a Japanese family who have
moved what they have designated as armed areas and includes networks in the United States.
These lands were legally forbidden to Japanese and Japanese-American residents (Hashimoto,
1996).
The request triggered a mass mobilization and migration of over 120,000 Japanese in search of
the so-called defense camps that had been set up and engaged in about 14 weeks. A large part of
the migrants lived on the west coast and 66% were American residents. According to the request,
the military sent them somewhere in the range of 26 destinations in seven western states,
reminiscent of remote areas for Washington, Idaho, Utah and Arizona.
The emphasis between freedom and security, especially in the midst of war, is as old as the
republic itself. If the content of the Constitution were to be reversed one passage in peace and
another during the war, as recommended for a regular court during the First World War by Judge
Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. Chr. WE. (1919)? "At a time when a country is at war,
there are a number of things that can be said at the time of the harmony of such a ban on the
application of gravity that men will not suffer as long as men fight, and that none court could see
them safe from any sacred rights.”After the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941, the United States entered the Second World War and opposed the proof of implementation
of the certificates of the Constitution at Despite military opinion of the real risk that Japan
entered the west coast, just as a credible threat to Japanese cart operations, the United States
government has asked to move and detain Japanese Americans living in that area From April
1942 to the end of the war, in September 1945, 110,000 members of the Japanese family, most of
whom were residents of the United States, were denied their freedom and are st ats held in
detention camps far from their former homes. They lost most of the assets they relied on from
government experts, but they had no chance to recover from their misfortunes to register because

they only knew no two to tear their properties apart before responding to gather the maneuvering
spots. The unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor was real, just like the horror that triggered it. How
real was the risk of a frame? Contrary to a general speech on this point by the Supreme Court in
oral disputes, Attorney General Charles Fahy urged a larger part of the judiciary to defend the
protection of Japanese Americans with "military need" (Rountree, 2001).
Analysis of the case:
Fred Korematsu, 23, was a Japanese-American resident who did not comply with the demand to
leave his home and retirement, despite how his men got rid of their home and nursery business in
bloom awaiting to answer a field. Korematsu planned to stay behind. He had a plastic medical
procedure on his eyes to change his appearance; changed his name to Clyde Sarah; and he
pretended to be Spanish and Hawaiian (Serrano and Minami, 2003).
On May 30, 1942, about a year and a half after the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor, the FBI
seized Korematsu for its inability to respond to a migrant location. After his capture, while in
prison, he decided to let the American Civil Liberties Union speak to him and pass a trial to
challenge the protection of the administrative structure. Korematsu was tried in a government
court in San Francisco, charged with failing to take account of military claims under Gov. 9066,
after five years of waiting for the post-trial process and sending him to a collection center in San
Bruno, California.
Korematsu's attorneys forwarded the preliminary court's choice to the United States Court of
Appeals, which agreed with the preliminary court that he had noticed military claims. Korematsu
urged the United States Supreme Court to hear his case. On 18 December 1944, a separate
Supreme Court ruled, in option 6-3, that a non-racial restriction was a "military necessity"
(Green, 2011).
Evaluation of the case:
In 1944, the United States Incomparable Court selected Korematsu's claim against the United
States, upholding President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1942 order of creation of "armed areas"
where family members were not allowed Japanese. This meant that a large number of Japanese

Americans living and working in these territories - a large proportion of their American residents
- were legally excluded from their homes and homes places of work. The Japanese Americans
had just been at the center of racial segregation and were regularly banned from married white
people, the claimed area and working in special campaigns (Alonso, 1998).
In 1983, a legitimate free agency with a new trial opened the 40-year-old case in a local
administrative court. They pointed out that the administration's legal body had deliberately
misrepresented or vandalized the government's intelligence agencies explaining that the Japanese
Americans did not pose a military threat to the United States. Official reports, including those of
the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, have not been presented in court. On November 10, 1983, a
government judge quashed Korematsu's conviction in a San Francisco congress hall, where he
was sentenced as a minor (Gold, 2006).
The district court confirmed Korematsu's innocence, but the discretion of the Supreme Court
despite everything is valid. Compensating the majority, Judge Hugo Black said that "all legal
restrictions that reduce the social freedom of a solitary racial meeting are quickly suspected" and
subject to "Consistently" trial, not all of these restrictions are naturally illegal. "Pushing the open
need," he said, "occasionally legitimizes these limits; racial hostility will never".
In an emphatic contrast, Judge Robert Jackson fought: Korematsu was staged for a show he
usually didn't think was wrong," he did in being simply available in the state in which he resides,
near where he was born and where he has lived all his life." Homeland security concerns during
the war, he fought, were not enough to overthrow Korematsu and several periods of their social
freedoms they did.
He called the refusal request "bigotry authorization" which ignored the fourth change equality
clause. He opposed the demand for circulation by the "abominable and horrible treatment of
minorities by the brutal governments that this country has now sworn to demolish. He pointed
out that the request for prohibition had adversely affected the Fourteenth Amendment by falling
into the terrible pre-natal wilderness (Minami, 2004).
The administration has long dismissed Japanese Americans for responding to the internment
camps with a spike metal camp recently set up to hold it. An American Japanese by the name of

Fred Korematsu would not have left his home; when he was arrested and convicted, he said,
arguing that President Roosevelt's structure violated his defense rights. In option 6-3, the
Supreme Court stated that the country's protection from potential representatives of the Japanese
government has exceeded American Japanese privileges. The sentence Mr. Korematsu remained,
and more than 120,000 remained in internment camps through 1946 (Citizenship and
Melodrama, 2008).
Since then the Korematsu alternative has been questioned as dangerous, and in contrast to Dred
Scott's choice of 1857 which declared black people unfit for American citizenship. In 1983, Mr.
Korematsu overruled his credibility, and in 1998 President Clinton granted him the Medal of
Freedom - but the option to deceive was never denied. "I might want the legislator to see that
they were not right," Korematsu said in 1983, "and to take care of business, so this will never
happen to any American resident of any race be, religious revelation or shadow again.”
Main Issue:
Was the military’s exclusion order justified?
Reasoning:
The main presiding opinion decided that the court should not treat the application in its entirety
under which Korematsu was filed, which included provisions that required residents to meet a
collection target and movement. Most considered it fundamental to guide the legitimacy of the
particular agreement under which Korematsu was sentenced: the agreement in anticipation of
leaving the designated area (v Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 2004).
Since the request was specific to people who were Japanese or who were leaving Japan, it was
subject to the "most unpleasant study". Most found that despite the fact that excluding residents
from their homes usually uses governmental authority, there is a special case where "serious []
and endangers open security", while in its definition and in the coherent link between the actions
of the administration and against secret and harmful activities. The lion's share concluded that
there was sufficient threat and an adequate connection between the request and the prospect of a
legitimate threat in calling vacant Korematsu. The majority said that the request was substantial.

The protesters are against this view. They explained their position that the application should be
considered in its entirety and the Court should have considered the various applications, which
all, if considered jointly, the residence of the United States in what were essentially
extermination camps, due of their race (Katyal, 2018).
United states constitution
The United States Constitution is a law for landlords and individuals, equally in war and
harmony, and spreads by the shield of its security to all kinds of people, on a regular basis and
under all conditions. No rule, including ever-worse results, has ever been imagined with the
human mind so much as any of his agreements could be canceled during one of the ridiculous
demands of government. Such doctrine leads directly to terrorism or empire, but the hypothesis
of the necessity on which it is based is false, given that the administration, within the
Constitution, has all its strengths important for defending the truth.
Critical analysis and argument for Internment:
Threat to the U.S. Pacific Coast
America's coastline in the Pacific was considered a real threat in the first months after Pearl
Harbor. After the US navy's Pacific fleet was wounded by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
on December 7, 1941, the American Pacific coast was largely defenseless if the Japanese had
chosen to launch attacks the west coast. Sure enough, on February 23, 1942 (four days after
President Franklin Roosevelt filed a 9066 action request), a Japanese submarine appeared off the
coast of Goleta, California, and bombed the treatment plant on the Elwood Oil at caused the
alarm to go along the boardwalk that stretched up and down the coast to Los Angeles. Military
and regular pioneers (led by California lawmakers) were shouting for the administration to build
limited areas around the West Coast military bases and major defense plants (necessarily aircraft
production lines from masses gathered in it) the California around that time). Ahead of the
scheduled period of 7 and 8 December 1941, President Roosevelt led the army and the FBI to
collect and understand Japanese, German and Italian "foreigners" (foreigners) resident outside
the U.S.) on the west coast (831 interned December 13 - 595 Japanese, 187 German and 49
Italian).

Filling further open feelings of fear of foreshadowing and harming with the arrival of January 25,
1942, the Roberts Commission report on the Pearl Harbor attack that reported "a cross-border
operation on Hawaii before Pearl Harbor, both by the console managers Japanese than by
Japanese settlers Oahu. "Although the case of the report that" Japanese residents of Oahu "filed
secret acts was denied after the war, there was widespread publicity according to which a
Japanese resident and two people from Hawaii brought Japanese Americans Niihau to the world
had used brutality towards neighbors to help a Japanese pilot who invaded Pearl Harbor
attacking society in general and accusing the west coast at risk of a hostile attack fueled by
Japanese Americans Despite, in retrospect, the Japanese army probably never intended to invade
the Pacific coast, there was one real fear with the political and military authority of the United
States, and the general public everywhere, at a time when this resistance came and went and
when it would arrive, a field of mysterious and harmful acts by residents would have had its
strength Japanese of the west coast (Murphy, 1944).
Protection of Japanese-Americans
Whatever advantages (or shortages in that region) of the white population have doubts about
American-Japanese solidarity, this threatening feeling existed even before the war against Japan
in December 1941, but it has continuously expanded in the severity of the weeks following the
Pearl Harbor attack. In a report in mid-1942 by a Navy officer stationed in Los Angeles, for
example, there was a standardized notice of that time of "times of turmoil and other common
problems" coordinated against the Japanese-American population. Thus, the expulsion of
Japanese Americans from California and western Oregon and Washington is likely to promulgate
an unregulated display of barbarian hordes committed against large swathes of Japanese
Americans, perhaps most saving lives and expecting bodily injury to, perhaps. , thousands. While
it must be recognized that the conditions contained in this "protection authority" were harsh and
crude, it is more likely that many injuries or deaths caused by an irresponsible white population
were not prevented.
Decision

The decision of the Korematsu Court, strongly examined by numerous common liberals at that
time and for the most part denied by historians from that moment on, has never been visibly
disturbed. In fact, it is mentioned occasionally to emphasize that "all legal restrictions that reduce
the social equality of a solitary ethnic gathering are quickly suspected." However, a 1983
congressional report stated that the option was "canceled in a history court" and that the 1988
Civil Liberties Act had a customary declaration of repentance - much like financial
compensation agreements - for him Japanese Americans interned during the war. In 1998,
President Bill Clinton awarded Fred Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Dred Scott Decision Case
Case Analysis
In April 1846, Dred and Harriet filed separate applications for access to St. Circuit Court. Louis
v Irene Emerson responsible for two Missouri resolutions (Graber, 2006). A resolution allowed
anyone of any shadow to sue for legal obedience. The other said that anyone who was taken to a
free area because of his freedom and could not be returned after returning to slavery (Douglass,
1857).
Neither Dred nor Harriet Scott could see or remedy and both needed help with volume and
money to discuss their case. They received it from their congregation, abolitionists and a distant
shop, the Blow family who had once applied for them (Skog, 2006).
Ever since Dred and Harriet Scott had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin District - both
vacancies - they trusted to have an influential case. The moment they went to the preface on June
30, 1847, whatever it was, the court ruled completely against them and allowed the designated
authority to withdraw (Hagan, 1926).
Dred Scott Wins His Freedom
When the pre-eminent United States Court approved Dred Scott's choice, Irene had hitchhiked
for her next consort, Calvin Chaffee, a member of Congress and an abolitionist of the United
States. Shocked after learning his best half, despite claiming the most famous slave of the time,

he offered Scott and his family to Taylor Blow, son of Peter Blow, Scott's sole owner
(Fehrenbacher, 2001).
Taylor freed Scott and his family on May 26, 1857. Scott sought some sort of job as a caretaker
in housing in St. Louis, but did not live long as a liberated person. At about 59, Scott passed
from tuberculosis on September 17, 1858 (Ehrlich, 1968).
Impact
Dred Scott's decision surprised those who wanted to abolish slavery, who saw the Supreme
Court's decision as a way to end the joke about service in the provinces. The gap between North
and South in servicing progressed and ended with the separation of the southern states from the
Union and the creation of the Confederate States of America (Douglas, 1857). The emancipation
proclamation of September 22, 1862, freed the oppressed people living in the Confederacy, but
another three years would elapse before Congress would pass the thirteenth amendment service
in the United States (Alexander, 2007).
Plessy v Ferguson Case
Background of the case
The case began in 1892 as a process of the Unique Car Act of Louisiana (1890). The law
required all railways operating in the state to provide "equal accommodation" to white and
African American travelers and restricted passengers. in structures other than those issued
according to their race. In 1891 a gathering of Creole experts in New Orleans framed the
Citizens' Committee to test the unique Constitution of automobile laws. They hired Albion
Tourgée, a judge during the reconstruction and a social reformer, as their legitimate adviser. As
an offensive part of the process, the advisory team selected a mixed race person to assist in his
conflict that the law could not be reliably applied due to his inability to identify white and "dyed"
breeds. Seventeen-eighth white and one eighth African American Homer Plessy bought a train
ticket for moving within Louisiana and sat in a vehicle reserved for white passengers. (The state
Supreme Court had previously ruled that the law could not be enforced for interstate travel.)
After refusing to travel by car for African Americans, he was arrested and charged with theft. he

abused a separate Car Act. In Plessy's introduction to the United States District Court, Judge
John H. Ferguson disputed his contention that the demonstration was illegal. After the state
Supreme Court sought the local court's decision, the United States Incomparable Court granted
the testimonies and oral disputes were heard on April 13, 1896. The court made its choice a
month later, on May 18 (Bernstein, 1963).
Louisiana enacted a separate Car Act, which required separate rail vehicles for blacksmiths and
whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - a seventh-eighth Caucasian - decided to take an interest in a trial
to challenge the law. He was summoned by the Comite des Citoyens (Citizens' Committee), a
gathering of New Orleans residents seeking to overturn the law. They asked Plessy, which was
truly dark by Louisiana law, to sit in a "particularly white" vehicle of a Louisiana train.
The railroad was coordinating because it believed that the law imposed unnecessary costs
through the acquisition of additional rail vehicles. When Plessy was advised to evacuate the
white vehicle, he cannot and is arrested (Medley, 2012).
Initially, Plessy's legal advisors argued that the exclusive Car Act circumvented the tenth and
fourteenth amendments. The designated authority found that Louisiana could comply with this
law to the extent that it affected railways within its borders. Plessy has been sentenced.
Despite the imbalances that the Plessy Anti-Ferguson administration gave African Americans,
the issue raises activism for social freedom within the group of African American people that
went on decades later. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson entered the dark web. There was no class
difference in loneliness. (3) Plessy and Desdunes were both white-collar class agents, perfectly
suited to carry a first-class ticket, however, the Car Act is a separate recognition by race, not by
class. This blackness was perceived in the same way, no special treatment was given. As such,
agents and ordinary workers cooperated during the civil rights era to oppose the law of the South
Jim Crow and blacklisted oppressive societies.
Majority Opinion
Writing for the majority, associate judge Henry Billings Brown rejected Plessy's claim that the
demonstration violated the tenth amendment (1865) on the United States Constitution, which

prohibited captivity, and the fourteenth amendment, which allowed African American citizens to
benefit fully and equally from citizenship. The tenth amendment, as pointed out by Brown, was
not unequivocally contested by the Car Act as it did not revoke the subscription or introduce
"identification" of subordination or captivity. In reaching this decision, he relied on the Supreme
Court decision in civil rights cases (1883), which found that African American racial violence is
not a motel and outdoor entertainment spaces "control sublimation or automatic attachment
perhaps again, including rights protected by the state's vitality by the XIVth amendment (Bishop,
1977).
Dissenting Opinion
As he would like to think it will turn into a sample of the American Social Freedom Act,
associate judge John Marshall Harlan asked the court to overlook the reasonless motive behind
the Act A unique car, which was “under the auspices of providing a similar solution for white
and black people, to persuade the latter to do their own business while advising railroad travelers
". Since accepting - and having been universally understood - the plight of African Americans,
the show on the celebration of slavery contradicted the Tenth Amendment, as pointed out by
Harlan.The effect of the law, he said, was to engage in the individual freedom and development
opportunity of both African Americans and white people.By in this way an attempt was made to
social freedom to guide its residents on the selective basis of their race, the humorous
demonstration for the instruction on the legitimate basic uniform of the Fourteenth Amendment's
equal insurance situation. He believed that "as I would see it, the judgment made today ends with
time with the same wickedness as the choice made by this council in the case of Dred Scott"
(1857), which he declared (in a sentiment made by chief judge Roger B. Taney) that African
Americans were not entitled to American citizenship benefits (Bernstein, 1962).
Case analysis
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is a well-known example of law with honors from the United States
Supreme Court. It supported state laws on racial isolation for open workplaces according to the
principle Separated however equal. Separately equal remained standard education in United
States law until he was criticized in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. leading

education body. After supervision by the Supreme Court, the New Orleans Citizens' Committee,
which had filed the case and coordinated Homer Plessy's arrest in a guilt show to pass the
Louisiana Delinquency Act, said, stating: "We, as saviors, we still accept that we are right and
our encouragement is sacrosanct. "The decision was made with a 7 to 1 vote with the usual
heartfelt created by Judge Henry Billings Brown and the difference made by Judge John
Marshall Harlan (Hoffer, 2012).
Quoting the Court's opinion, Judge Brown stated: “We believe that the hidden false opinion of
the disputed party's controversy includes the suspicion that the authorized division of the two
breeds marks the hued breed with an indication of infidelity. In case this is the case, it's not the
direct result of anything found in the show, but only because the dark race decides to put on that
development. "Judge Brown also referred to a case in Boston for maintaining schools. based on
loneliness. Although the Court did not find a qualification in terms of quality between the white
railway and blacks in preparation, this was obviously misleading given that most other
segregated workplaces, such as open toilets, bistros and government-assisted schools where
workplaces were located were the role of blacks is less than that of whites (Elliott, 2006).
John Marshall Harlan's identity is different from most. In an assessment that was then given the
opportunity to be particularly critical in Brown's cases against a leading body of education
(1954), he argued that a separation authority, similar to Louisiana law for this position, was
based on the assumption that "shadow residents are so below average and devastated that they
will not be included to openly support the advisors that white people want." These laws went
ahead and affirmed the belief that African Americans were very different from white people,
according to Judge Harlan. They should be fired; he fought, because the council has determined
that it is not possible to “allow the seeds of racial hatred to be put under the authority of the law.”
Judge Harlan thought it should the constitution being “visually interrogated” and unable to
“allow dominant and cruel residents”. Because loneliness affected the creation of such classes,
he felt, it was illegal (Davis, 2012).
Plessy tended to institute state laws establishing racial isolation in the South and gave great
impetus to advancing isolationist laws. He also deals with Northern laws that require racial
isolation as in the Boston school isolation case that Judge Brown observed from his point of

view. The winning regulatory achievements in the middle of the reconstruction period were
marred by "separate but equal" educational methods. The directive was also supported by a
Supreme Court decision in 1875 that limited the ability of the focused government to engage in
state activities, simply giving Congress the power to "control states from demonstrations". of
racial segregation and loneliness. ”The permissible discretion is essentially authoritative restraint
while monitoring racial demands, ensuring that states have the privilege of running institutions.
are extremely racist, calling them "equal". I accept that this was the correct decision of the High
Court, as this case prompted Martin Luther King Jr.'s promotion. for letters, loyalty, wellbeing
and prosperity for all in the United States and Brown v. Develop a guide collection, allowing
black and white subjects to live in similar schools (Scott, 2007).
Impact of the case
After the Supreme Court Plessy v. Ferguson governed the isolation of rail vehicles, the "separate
however equal" regulation was found throughout the south. The Plessy case turned into a point
of reference, used to validate isolationist provisions and to agree with Jim Crow that he ran
throughout the South and even in some northern states (Elliott, 2001).
The article is titled "Jim Crow Again" reports how Charleston, North Carolina, has adopted the
different vehicle strategy and now claims that different arrangements should be made in different
areas of open living.
The principle of "sexual equality" has allowed African Americans to be legally alone in all the
ways that white officials and judicial authorities believed. Everything in front of the public right
now is a reasonable measure to prevent African Americans. Plessy's administration balances
several years of ruthless divorces and harsh treatment of blacks, but is currently legally
satisfactory through the interpretation of the Constitution due to the discretion of the Supreme
Court (Kelley, 2010).
There is a huge increase in blackout and terrorism through Jim Crow South. In 1899 New
Orleans news, "Anarchy in the South, white terrorist bases killing people in large numbers. The
press release reports on ongoing ties in urban communities around the world. Southern as if they
were sporting characteristics (Maidment, 1973).

Conclusion
The court said state law was sacred. In a decision written by Judge Henry Billings Brown, the
lion's share of racial isolation remained from the state. Equity Brown pointed out that the
fourteenth amendment was to create a clear balance for breeds under the watchful eye of the law,
but he felt that different treatment did not suggest how different African Americans were. The
Court noted that there was no significant difference in quality between white and dark rail
vehicles (Anderson, 2004).
Therefore, isolation did not in itself involve unlawful segregation.
Contrary, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was partially blind and that the
United States lacked a class framework. Similarly, all residents should have equal access to
social equality.
Although not specifically written in the choice, Plessy stated that "separate offices" for whites
and whites were protected while being "equal". however identical half "was reached immediately
to cover several open living areas, such as state-funded cafes, theaters, bathrooms and schools.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that if enactment makes differences depend on race, but
does not deny anyone rights or privileges, it is sacred. The court seemed to accept that the
normal act of segregation was a burden, not something that held the benefits of the African
American. The Court also recognized that the enactment was able to get rid of racial sensitivity
or prevent differences based on physical differences (McNeese, 2007).

References
Alexander, R., 2007. Dred Scott: The Decision that Sparked a Civil War. N. Ky. L. Rev., 34,
p.643.
Alonso, K., 1998. Korematsu V. United States: Japanese-American Internment Camps. Enslow
Pub Incorporated.
Anderson, W., 2004. Plessy V. Ferguson: Legalizing Segregation. The Rosen Publishing Group.
Bernstein, B.J., 1962. Case law in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Journal of Negro History, 47(3),
pp.192-198.
Bernstein, B.J., 1963. Plessy v. Ferguson: Conservative sociological jurisprudence. The Journal
of Negro History, 48(3), pp.196-205.
Bishop, D.W., 1977. Plessy v. Ferguson: A reinterpretation. The Journal of Negro History, 62(2),
pp.125-133.
Citizenship, P. and Melodrama, A.J., 2008. Fred Korematsu, the plaintiff in Korematsu v. United
States (1944), singles out the disconcerting power of the American press when he looks
back on the period during which he resisted the government’s exclusion orders against
Japanese Americans. When Korematsu, a Nisei, got word that he would be forcefully
evacuated from his home, he decided to evade what he considered. The Spectacle of
Japanese American Trauma: Racial Performativity and World War II, p.100.
Davis, T.J., 2012. Plessy V. Ferguson. ABC-CLIO..
Douglas, S.A., 1857. Kansas, Utah, & the Dred Scott Decision. Printed at the Daily Times Book
and Job Office.
Douglass, F., 1857. Two Speeches, by Frederick Douglass;: One on West India Emancipation,
Delivered at Canandaigua, Aug. 4th, and the Other on the Dred Scott Decision, Delivered
in New York, on the Occasion of the Anniversary of the American Abolition Society, May,
1857. CP Dewey, printer, American Office.
Ehrlich, W., 1968. Was the Dred Scott Case Valid?. The Journal of American History, 55(2),
pp.256-265.
Elliott, M., 2001. Race, color blindness, and the Democratic public: Albion W. Tourgée's radical
principles in Plessy v. Ferguson. Journal of Southern History, pp.287-330.
Elliott, M., 2006. Color-blind justice: Albion Tourgee and the quest for racial equality from the
Civil War to Plessy v. Ferguson. OUP USA.
Fehrenbacher, D.E., 2001. The Dred Scott case: Its significance in American law and politics.
Oxford University Press, USA.
Gold, S.D., 2006. Korematsu V. United States: Japanese-American Internment. Marshall
Cavendish.
Graber, M.A., 2006. Dred Scott and the problem of constitutional evil. Cambridge University
Press.
Green, C., 2011. Ending the Korematsu era: an early view from the war on terror cases. Nw. UL
Rev., 105, p.983.
Hagan, H.H., 1926. Dred Scott Decision. Geo. LJ, 15, p.95.
Hashimoto, D.M., 1996. The legacy of Korematsu v. United States: a dangerous narrative
retold. UCLA Asian Pac. Am. LJ, 4, p.72.
Hoffer, W.H., 2012. Plessy v. Ferguson: race and inequality in Jim Crow America. University
Press of Kansas.

Katyal, N.K., 2018. Trump v. Hawaii: How the Supreme Court Simultaneously Overturned and
Revived Korematsu. Yale LJF, 128, p.641.
Kelley, B.M., 2010. Right to ride: Streetcar boycotts and African American citizenship in the era
of Plessy v. Ferguson. Univ of North Carolina Press.
Maidment, R.A., 1973. Plessy v. Ferguson re-examined. Journal of American Studies, 7(2),
pp.125-132.
McNeese, T., 2007. Plessy V. Ferguson. Infobase Publishing.
Medley, K.M., 2012. We as freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson. Pelican Publishing.
Minami, D., 2004. Japanese-American Redress. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol'y Rep., 6, p.27.
Murphy, F., 1944. Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[Dissenting:
Korematsu vs. United States, 323 US 214, No. 22]. Washington, DC: US Supreme Court–
Argued October, pp.11-12.
Rountree, C., 2001. Instantiating “the law” and its dissents in Korematsu v. United States: A
dramatistic analysis of judicial discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87(1), pp.1-24.
Scott, R.J., 2007. The Atlantic World and the Road to Plessy v. Ferguson. The Journal of
American History, 94(3), pp.726-733.
Serrano, S.K. and Minami, D., 2003. Korematsu v. United States: A. United States: A" Constant
Caution" in a Time of Crisis (May 1, 2003). Berkeley Asian Law Journal, 10.
Skog, J., 2006. The Dred Scott Decision. Capstone.
v Rumsfeld, H., 542 US 507 (2004). Korematsu v United States, 584.