Was Korematsu a “Legitimate” Supreme Court Decision?

Kim Roosevelt and I are debating the legitimacy of Korematsu v. United States over at my blog IsThatLegal. Kim’s arguing that the decision was wrong but nonetheless “legitimate” because it proceeded from a valid principle of deference to military decisionmaking, and I’m disagreeing.

Check it out, and share your thoughts in the comments, either here or there.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. KipEsquire says:

    FYI: The comment spam filter at “ITL?” is being a bit overinclusive and is blocking all commenting. 😉

    It seems to me that there is a difference between: (1) a court showing deference to the military, and (2) a court, through its inaction, compelling law-abiding citizens to show deference to the military through the abrogation of civil liberties.

    Stated differently: Since I am not in the military, he may be “My President,” but he is never “My Commander-in-Chief.”

  2. Seth R. Feldman says:

    interesting reading on this is William Rehnquist’s Civil Liberties During Wartime and a criticism written by the late Victor Rosenblum “A Pertinent Message for Today from Key Constitutional and Administrative Rulings of Yesterday,” 40 San Diego Law Review 1533-1553 (2003).

    my blue book citation style is probably severely lacking after two years of non-use as a struggling new lawyer.

  3. Wonie says:

    Korematsu is still good law today. The decision has never been overturned. And, unil the Grutter decision, it marked the last time a racial classification survived strict scrutiny review.