What did the US Supreme Court decide in the Ex parte Endo case?

Answer 1

In Ex Parte Endo, 323 US 283 (1944), the US Supreme Court held there was no legitimate, legally sanctioned reason for holding loyal, law-abiding Japanese-American citizens in internment camps once the government determined they weren't threats to the nation's security. The Court declared their detention was not authorized under Executive Order 9066 nor subsequent legislation; the war-time orders were intended only to protect the country from espionage and sabotage, not to discriminate against an entire class of people based on their ethnic heritage.

Answer 2

The US Supreme Court told the The War Authority to release Mitsuye Endo from a Japanese Relocation Center (internment camp) because it had no legal justification for holding her.

Explanation

In a unanimous 9-0 decision for Ex Parte Endo, 323 US 283 (1944), the US Supreme Court reversed a US District Court decision refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus for Mitsuye Endo, a Japanese-American citizen being held against her will in a Japanese Relocation Center (internment camp) under Executive Order 9066. The Court held the purpose of Executive Order 9066 and its supporting legislation, was to protect vulnerable areas of the country, such as the entire West Coast from Japanese attack following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The President's order was intended to only to prevent espionage and sabotage, not to discriminate against a minority group based on race.

In the opinion of the Court, Justice William O. Douglas interpreted Executive Orders 9066 and 9102, as well as an Act of Congress of March 21, 1942, as lacking a provision for detaining citizens the government conceded were loyal and law-abiding. The Court stated The War Authority had no right to continue detaining Mitsuye Endo under the law, and ordered her unsupervised release.

The decision in the case didn't address constitutional issues (except as obiter dictum, or non-binding commentary) because the Justices were able to make a decision on the basis of their interpretation of the law.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.