2. Korematsu vs. US
BACKGROUND INFO
During World War II, the Japanese bombed US Naval
Station, Pearl Harbor. After this incident the US government
was concerned of Japanese-Americans who could be spies
to help their mother country. Due to the scare the
government order all Japanese persons that lived in America
to live in internment camps. Mr. Korematsu thought his
rights were violated so he decided to take it to the Supreme
Court.
3. Korematsu v. US
Plaintiff's Argument
Fred Korematsu argued that the US government is violating his
14th amendment, which states: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” He claimed the US government made a law
discriminating him against his race and therefore, the
government did not have the right to send US citizens into
internment camps bases on racial profiles.
4. Korematsu v. US
Defendant’s Argument
The US government argued that there was evidence of
espionage from Japanese-Americans, and that they felt a
threat; therefore, giving the government the right to treat the
race as one and put them into internment camps for national
security.
5. Korematsu v. US
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in the majority with the United
States because the individual rights can be limited in
wartime situations. Justice Murphy strongly disagreed with
the decision saying it is a, “legalization of racism,”
however, the majority ruled 6-3 and ruled that Fred
Korematsu and other Japanese-American rights were not
violated.
6. McCulloch v. Maryland
Background
In 1791 there were arguments of whether or not there
should be a national bank or state bank. The Maryland
branch of the United State national bank decided to close a
section and in return pay 15,000 dollars in taxes to the
government. James McCulloch who was a worker for the
Baltimore branch being closed decided not to give out the
money. The State of Maryland took him to court.
7. McCulloch v. Maryland
Plaintiff’s Argument
The state argued that the national government could not
regulate state banks because it is not in the US constitution
to create a national bank.
Defendant’s Argument
McCulloch argued that a power of Congress is to do what is
necessary and proper and in his argument that is to create a
national bank. He insisted that a national bank is an implied
power of the US Congress.
8. McCulloch v. Maryland
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in the majority with James
McCulloch. The decision was unanimous 9-0 and they
stated that the Congress can make a national bank and a
state can not tax a national bank in it’s borders. Congress
has implied powers and to create a national bank is one of
them.
9. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Background
Dred Scott, a slave, was owned by the Emerson’s who had
lived in a free state, Illinois, they had moved to a slave state
Missouri. And once Dr. Emerson died, he left his
possessions with his widow, possessions include slaves.
However, Dred Scott claimed he was now a free man
because he had lived in a free state even though he was a
born a slave. Many legal actions occurred before the US
Supreme Court heard the case in 1854.
10. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plaintiff’s Argument
Dred Scott argued that he should be a free state because he
had lived in a free state and his owner passed away and his
time as a slave should end.
Defendant’s Argument
John Sanford argued that he lives in a slave state now
therefore, he should be a slave and in property to the
Emersons.
11. Dred Scott v. Sandford
Decision
The court ruled in favor of John Sanford. The decision was
7-2 for Sanford and the court ruled that African Americans
are not citizens and they do not simply become free because
they live in a free state. Thus being a slave in a free state
does not make you free, you are only free if you are born in
a free state.
