Robert Jackson dissented in Korematsu vs. US (He's quoted there) *and* he was the chief architect of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg). A true American Hero if there ever was one.
That decision simultaneously disavowed Korematsu and affirmed its holding. Note the "solely and explicitly" language. If Trump linked a group to a purported national-security risk (e.g., Muslim-Americans who opposed Israel), I'm not sure that language would prohibit Korematsu-style internment.
If something good can come out of this disgraceful episode that imprisoned many of my relatives, I hope it has to do with fighting Trump and Stephen Miller.
In name, yes. In spirit, not so much. Trump v. Hawaii pretty much adopted Korematsu's reasoning. (I was counsel for amici in the case that argued Korematsu should be explicitly overturned.)
Atwood said recently (I’m paraphrasing here) camps built to house a certain group of people often, in totalitarian societies, end up housing political enemies and other people who resist as well.
Stephen Miller will be so upset. The prospect of stuffing unlimited numbers of people into concentration camps is all that's kept him going during Biden's administration.
"Outside the scope of Presidential authority" is the important part here, I think. Per the SCOTUS decision, immunity is granted for "official acts" within "core constitutional powers."
Comments
Listen up social justice warriors!
How many of the FedSoc Six nod their heads sagely and observe that "people in the country illegally" isn't solely or explicity race-based?