Japanese American redress and court cases facts for kids
During World War II, many Japanese Americans faced a difficult time. The United States government forced about 120,000 people of Japanese descent, including many U.S. citizens, to leave their homes and live in special camps. This article explains the efforts made to get justice and an apology for these actions, known as the redress movement. It also looks at important court cases that helped shape civil and human rights for Japanese Americans and other minority groups in the U.S. These cases led to big changes in American law and how the government viewed Asian immigrants.
Contents
Why This Happened
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the government to remove and hold Japanese Americans living on the West Coast of the United States.
About 5,500 Issei men (first-generation Japanese immigrants) were arrested right after Pearl Harbor. They were held by the FBI or the Army. Some 5,000 people managed to move voluntarily outside the restricted areas. However, most Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes in the spring of 1942. They were sent to isolated camps. Two-thirds of these people were U.S. citizens. Half of them were under 18 years old.
In 1944, the Supreme Court said these forced removals were constitutional. This happened when Fred Korematsu challenged his conviction for not obeying an exclusion order. The Court's decision only covered the orders to leave the West Coast. It did not directly address holding U.S. citizens in camps.
In 1948, the Evacuation Claims Act offered some money for property losses. But people needed documents to prove their losses, which many had lost during their forced removal. The act also did not cover lost jobs, wages, or interest. Less than 24,000 people filed claims. Most received only a small part of what they had lost.
Important Court Cases
Gordon Hirabayashi's Case, 1943
Gordon Hirabayashi was found guilty of breaking a curfew. This rule said that all people of Japanese ancestry in certain areas had to be in their homes between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Hirabayashi was a student at the University of Washington. He felt the curfew went against his Fifth Amendment right to fair treatment. So, he disobeyed it. He also did not report for confinement to the bus that was supposed to take him to a camp. This made the charges against him more serious.
It wasn't until 1987 that the Supreme Court dropped the charges against Hirabayashi. It took 40 years for someone to find old government papers. These papers showed that government lawyers were forced to lie in court about the danger posed by Japanese Americans.
This case raised two main questions. First, was the curfew law unconstitutional? Second, was it a case of racial discrimination? Racial discrimination was a common issue in all these cases.
The Supreme Court decided that the curfew was constitutional. They called it a "protective measure."
Mitsuye Endo's Case, 1944
Mitsuye Endo was a Nisei (second-generation Japanese American). She worked as a stenographer in Sacramento, the capital of California. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, she was fired from her job. She and her family were forced to move to the Tule Lake Relocation Center. Later, they were moved to the Topaz War Relocation Center in Utah. Like thousands of other Japanese Americans, Endo lost her job and her home.
Endo hired a lawyer named James Purcell. They filed a habeas corpus petition in court. This legal request asked for Endo to be released from the camp. She wanted to challenge her dismissal. The court agreed to release Endo, but only outside the West Coast area.
The U.S. government offered to release Endo outside the West Coast. They did not want to test if holding people was constitutional. But Endo bravely refused this offer. She stayed in the camp without charges for two more years while fighting her case.
Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. They said that people of Japanese descent could not be held in camps without proof of disloyalty. The Court stated that holding loyal Japanese Americans in camps was against the Constitution. After this ruling, Endo and thousands of others were allowed to return to their homes on the Pacific Coast.
This case was special for a few reasons. First, Endo was a woman. The other three main internment cases involved Japanese American men. Second, this case came from a habeas corpus petition, which is a specific type of legal request.
Fred Korematsu's Case, 1944
Another important case was Korematsu v. United States. This case focused on Japanese Americans who were U.S. citizens but were still forced to move. Fred Korematsu refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home. He would not report to a relocation camp. He was arrested and found guilty. After losing in a lower court, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court. He challenged if the deportation order was constitutional.
The Supreme Court upheld the order. This meant they agreed that people of Japanese ancestry could be excluded from the West Coast war zone during World War II. Three justices disagreed with this decision.
Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said that legal rules affecting one racial group are always "suspect." He said courts must look at them very carefully. However, he added that they are not always unconstitutional. He admitted the exclusion order caused great hardship. But he said hardships are part of war. He also said that forcing large groups of citizens from their homes is usually wrong. But in times of great danger, the power to protect must match the threat.
Justice Owen Roberts disagreed. He said this case was about punishing a citizen for not going to a camp. He said it was based only on his ancestry, without any proof of disloyalty.
Justice Robert Jackson also disagreed. He pointed out that similar burdens were not placed on people of German or Italian descent, even though the U.S. was also at war with Germany and Italy.
The Redress Movement
In the 1960s and 1970s, the larger civil rights movement and a growing sense of ethnic pride inspired Japanese American activists. They began to push for a new look at what their parents and grandparents went through during the war. Many younger people had only recently learned about the camps. Their elders had often been hesitant to talk about it openly. Soon, a debate began about whether the community should receive reparations (money or other forms of compensation).
In 1970, the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) supported a plan. They wanted Congress to pay each camp survivor for every day they spent in confinement. However, the organization didn't put much effort into lobbying for this. For several years, efforts for redress stalled. This was due to disagreements within the community and opposition from outside.
In 1979, the JACL suggested creating a federal commission to investigate the camps. But some members, who wanted immediate money, left to form the National Council for Japanese American Redress (NCJAR). The NCJAR supported a bill to pay survivors, but it failed. The next year, the JACL, with help from Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga, got a bill passed. This bill created the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
Meanwhile, younger activists formed the National Coalition for Redress/Reparations (NCRR). They worked to make sure the CWRIC hearings included testimony from all Japanese Americans, not just the leaders. After the hearings, NCRR continued to push for redress from the community level. The JACL focused on passing laws based on the CWRIC's ideas. The NCJAR filed a lawsuit to force the government to pay former inmates. This lawsuit was not successful. However, the work of all three groups helped lead to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.
Timeline of the Redress Movement
- 1970: Edison Uno proposes that Congress should pay reparations to camp survivors. The JACL supports this idea.
- 1976: Michi Weglyn publishes Years of Infamy. This book's detailed research helped the redress movement.
- January 1979: The JACL decides to push for a federal commission to investigate the camps. This decision causes disagreements.
- May 1979: Some JACL members leave to form the National Council for Japanese American Redress (NCJAR).
- August 1979: Bills to create an investigative committee are introduced in Congress.
- November 28, 1979: Congressman Mike Lowry introduces a bill backed by NCJAR. It would give $15,000 plus $15 for each day spent in confinement to former inmates.
- 1980: The National Coalition for Redress/Reparations (NCRR) is formed.
- July 31, 1980: President Carter approves the creation of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC).
- July to December 1981: The CWRIC holds eleven hearings in ten U.S. cities. More than 750 people share their personal stories of confinement. For many, it is the first time they have spoken about their wartime experiences.
- February 24, 1983: The CWRIC releases its final report, Personal Justice Denied. The report says the internment was caused by "race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership." It recommends a formal apology, a foundation to educate the public, and $20,000 in reparations for each former inmate.
- March 16, 1983: NCJAR files a class-action lawsuit against the government. They ask for $220,000 for each camp survivor.
- 1984 to 1985: The government's request to dismiss the lawsuit is granted. NCJAR appeals. The court rules in favor of NCJAR but reduces the number of claims.
- 1986: The Supreme Court allows NCJAR lawyers to argue their lawsuit. But it orders the case to be heard in a different court.
- September 17, 1987: H.R. 442, named after the famous all-Japanese combat unit, is discussed in the House and passes.
- May 11, 1988: The NCJAR lawsuit is dismissed.
- August 10, 1988: President Ronald Reagan signs the Civil Liberties Act into law. This act includes the recommendations from Personal Justice Denied.
- October 9, 1990: A ceremony is held to give the first redress checks to nine Issei.
- 1993: All redress checks are issued. A total of 82,219 former camp inmates received reparations.
Later Court Cases
In the 1980s, the Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui cases were reopened. This happened through special legal requests called coram nobis petitions. These legal actions eventually canceled the convictions from the 1940s. This meant the original guilty verdicts were overturned.
