Salem Press

	A good introductory resource, this is one of the more useful titles in Salem's Magill's Choice series, because it pulls together content that is scattered throughout so many other sets.
Booklist

Criminal Justice
Clear, authoritative treatment of all aspects of criminal justice - emphasis on justice in the media.

U.S. Laws, Acts,
and Treaties
Provides the much-needed service of selecting, from literally thousands of U.S. laws, those most likely to come up in classroom discussions.

The Bill of Rights
A comprehensive survey of all aspects of the U.S. Bill of Rights; from its origins to its role in modern American history.

U.S. Legal System
This set includes articles emphasizing basic legal concepts and offer a practical guide to how the federal and state legal systems work.

U.S. Court Cases
Hirabayashi v. United States

U.S. Supreme Court - Ruling issued June 21, 1943

In this case, which began during World War II, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the military’s use of a curfew in a wartime situation.

In 1942, Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, an American citizen of Japanese ancestry, was arrested for violating the curfew set by General John L. DeWitt on the West Coast and subsequently failing to report to a designated Civil Control Station for assignment to a “relocation center” (internment camp). The military acted under the authority of Executive Order 9066, issued on February 19, 1942, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This order authorized the secretary of war and appropriate military commanders to establish military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded. The president issued this order solely on his authority as commander in chief of the army and navy. After Hirabayashi was found guilty of violating the curfew and failing to report to the Civil Control Station, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 in favor of the United States and upheld the military’s right to authorize a curfew. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Harlan Stone, who emphasized the grave character of the national emergency that had confronted the nation in 1942 and the possible disloyalty of portions of the Japanese American minority. He further noted that “in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry.” The Court, he thought, ought not to challenge the conclusion of the military authorities that the federal power be interpreted as broadly as possible. While there was some question of the constitutionality of the military order under the Fifth Amendment, Justice Stone denied that the curfew was unconstitutional because the amendment contained no equal protection clause.

Interestingly, though the Court was unanimous in its holding, there were three separate concurring opinions, by Justices Frank Murphy, William O. Douglas, and Wiley Rutledge. Justice Murphy made it clear that he found restrictions upon minority rights on the basis of race odious even in wartime: “Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and our ideals.” He believed that the curfew order bore “a melancholy resemblance to the treatment accorded to members of the Jewish race in Germany and other parts of Europe.” He nevertheless justified the order, constitutionally, because of the “critical military situation” on the West Coast.

While the Court upheld the act of Congress of March 21, 1942, authorizing the curfew, it seems clear that at least some of the justices were quite uncomfortable with the relocation program. Therein is the legacy of this case: Why did the justices not offer a decision on the Japanese Relocation Program? It seems evident that a majority of the justices were extremely reluctant to interfere with the program, primarily because they were unwilling to dispute the judgment of the president and military commanders as to what was necessary to win the war. Therefore, it was easier for them to determine only that the curfew order was constitutional and lay within the combined congressional and presidential powers.

Kevin F. Sims