Memory and Non-Place: Visual Testimonies of Japanese American Internment During World War II

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-111
Author(s):  
Ana Paulina Lee
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
World War ◽  
Japanese American Internment

Habeas Corpus Today

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
The Political ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
World War ◽  
Japanese American Internment ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Enemy Combatant

The experience of World War II and the precedent of the Japanese American internment dramatically altered the political and legal landscape surrounding habeas corpus and suspension. This chapter discusses Congress’s enactment of the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 along with its repeal in 1971. It further explores how in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, questions over the scope of executive authority to detain prisoners in wartime arose anew. Specifically, this chapter explores the Supreme Court’s sanctioning of the concept of the “citizen-enemy combatant” in its 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and evaluates Hamdi against historical precedents. Finally, the chapter explores how Hamdi established the basis for an expansion of the reach of the Suspension Clause in other respects—specifically, to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The 1944 Korematsu Supreme Court Decision

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric K. Yamamoto
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
World War ◽  
Japanese American Internment ◽  
Strict Scrutiny ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
The World ◽  
The Government

This chapter unravels the World War II majority and dissenting opinions in Korematsu v. United States, describing the recited factual foundations of the Court’s ruling (along with the dissenters’ sharp counterpoints) and detailing the Court’s announced strict scrutiny standard alongside its actual extremely deferential judicial review. In closely examining the Japanese American internment (exclusion and incarceration) case, it concisely examines the documents and written and oral arguments about military necessity advanced by the government (and accepted by the Court majority), along with Justice Murphy’s factual rejoinders and condemnation of the majority’s complicity in the government’s descent into “the ugly abyss of racism.” It closes by examining Justice Jackson’s Korematsu “loaded weapon” warning, along with contemporary views of the warning’s relevance.

Blackface Behind Barbed Wire: Gender and Racial Triangulation in the Japanese American Internment Camps

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Roxworthy
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Japanese Americans ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
World War ◽  
Internment Camps ◽  
Us History ◽  
Japanese American Internment ◽  
Racial Impersonation ◽  
Blackface Performance

In a dark footnote to a dark chapter in US history, Japanese Americans interned by their own government during World War II performed in blackface behind barbed wire. Exploring blackface performance in the camps raises questions regarding the potential resistance of racial impersonation and blackface's potential for triangulating race.

scholarly journals Article II and Antidiscrimination Norms

2019 ◽  
pp. 47-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aziz Huq
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
World War ◽  
Japanese American Internment ◽  
Executive Discretion ◽  
Muslim Majority ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Trump v. Hawaii validated a prohibition on entry to the United States from several Muslim-majority countries and at the same time repudiated a longstanding precedent associated with the Japanese American internment of World War II. This Article closely analyzes the relationship of these twin rulings. It uses their dichotomous valences as a lens on the legal scope for discriminatory action by the federal executive. Parsing the various ways in which the internment of the 1940s and the 2017 exclusion order can be reconciled, the Article identifies a tension between the Court’s two holdings in Trump v. Hawaii. Contrary to the Court’s apparent assumption, the internment cannot easily be rejected if the 2017 travel ban is embraced. There is no analytically defensible and practicably tractable boundary between the two. Recognizing this disjunction and explaining why the Court’s effort to separate past from present practice cannot prevail, I argue, reveals what might be called an “Article II discretion to discriminate.” By identifying and mapping this form of executive discretion, the Article offers a critique of the Court’s recent construction of executive power in light of historical precedent and consequentialist justifications. It further illuminates downstream distributive and regulatory consequences of executive power in the context of ongoing judicial constriction of Article II discretion over regulatory choices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document