Question

During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. [Fred Toyosaburo] Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California, and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. After his arrest and relocation, Korematsu appealed to the Supreme Court, citing that his internment was a violation of his basic rights as an American Citizen. The Supreme Court sided with the federal government in its decision. Source: Oyez.org Based on the scenario above, why does the Supreme Court decision in Korematsu reflect judicial restraint?

Answer 1

Answer:

Korematsu v. the United States (1944) is an example of how the principle of judicial restraint allows courts to refuse to interfere with severe violations to the constitutional rights of minorities.  

Explanation:

While judicial restraint is necessary for the democratic political process, it also enables the majoritarian oppression of minorities, like the racial discrimination against Japanese Americans that the Supreme Court upheld in this case.