Judge Harlan Stone Court Ruling

While the prosecution council, representing Fred Korematsu, made some interesting
arguments and tried to prove all of defenses unusable, the defense council, representing the
U.S. government, had a great closing argument that addressed all three specifications of strict
scrutiny proving that what the U.S. government did was constitutional for the time. For the mock
trial, we were tasked with answering if Executive Order 9066 and the subsequent Civilian
Exclusion Orders were unconstitutional and if Fred Korematsu is guilty of breaking a law. It is
the opinion of the court that under normal circumstances, the Executive Order and Civilian
Exclusion Orders would be considered unlawful, but considering that the country was in the
middle of war, the orders can be considered constitutional Yes it discriminated against a large
group of people, but the government had to worry about the whole countrys population. During
high stress times, the government has to do its best to protect the majority of its population. For
the second question: is Korematsu guilty? Yes he is. There were exact commands ordered to
people of Japanese Ancestry to move to internment camps. He actually went out of his way to
not listen to the rules. Each of the following paragraphs is centered around the three parts of
strict scrutiny.
The first aspect of strict scrutiny, compelling governmental interests, is probably the
easiest one to cover for both sides. The defense argued that because it was during wartime and
that American citizens could be harmed by enemy espionage, it was enough for the government
to be involved. The prosecution didnt have an exact opposition to the defenses views because
that is exactly what happened. After the Pearl Harbor attack, the government took control,
enacting martial law in Hawaii and putting into effect certain orders across the West coast.
However, the prosecution did argue that the War Department deceived and ignored the council
of experts including the director of the FBI and the Naval Intelligence Agency, who both advised
that there was no realistic threat from the vast majority of imprisoned Japanese persons.
Narrowly tailored, the second aspect of strict scrutiny, means that the law has to be as
specific as possible. If the government action encompasses too much or fails to address
essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The defense argued that the prosecution's belief that making the law only applicable to enemy
aliens wouldnt fit this part of strict scrutiny. The defense also brought up the fact that if an
enemy spy is good at their job, then a loyalty test from the United States wouldnt be a problem
for them. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had previously directed the FBI to round up and intern
Japanese, German, and Italian people thought to be spies on the west coast. They only found
831 to 1500 people. Even still, the FBI found ammunition and maps in Japanese-American
homes near areas that people had reported light signals being seen. The prosecution argued
that the law should just be applicable to suspected alien enemies, but as mentioned before, it
wouldnt be narrowly tailored.
The last test of strict scrutiny is least restrictive means. Summed up, this means that
there cannot be a lesser confining mean possible for the government to use. Neither of the
sides gave a straightforward answer to this section of strict scrutiny. The defense argued that
the camps were not as bad as the prosecution would have the audience believe. They stated
that the camps gave the Japanese-American people a safe place to live away from the
xenophobia and hatred that they would encounter outside of the camps.
This mock trial was a close one. The prosecution team had great evidence to backup
their claims, but the defense team spoke better and seemed more rehearsed. And even though
the prosecution may have had better evidence I still believe that defense won the case. Their
delivery was much more fine-tuned than the other side and I could follow them easier in the trial.
While some of their evidence may have been slightly flawed (thanks to Mr. Leavitt for pointing
that out), they just knew what they were doing. Im not saying the prosecution didnt, they were
just less rehearsed. Overall, both teams did great but the defense won fair and square.