Facts
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 (1942), authorizing military commanders to designate military areas and exclude persons from them.
- Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, commanding the Western Defense Command, issued an order imposing a curfew in designated areas requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to remain at home from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
- Gordon Kiyoshi Hirabayashi, a U.S. citizen of Japanese ancestry living in the designated area, intentionally violated the curfew.
- Hirabayashi was indicted on two counts: (1) violating the curfew order and (2) failing to report to a Civilian Control Station as required by a civil exclusion order.
- He argued the governing statute and orders involved unconstitutional delegation and unconstitutional discrimination based on race and ancestry under the Fifth Amendment.
- A federal jury convicted him on both counts; the court imposed concurrent three-month sentences.
- On review, because the sentences were concurrent, the Supreme Court evaluated only whether the curfew conviction could be sustained and did not decide the validity of the exclusion-related count.
Issues
- Whether Congress, through the Act of March 21, 1942, and the President, through Executive Order 9066, unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to military commanders to impose civilian curfews in designated military areas.
- Whether a curfew applicable only to persons of Japanese ancestry in designated military areas violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction on the curfew count.
- Congress, by the Act of March 21, 1942, ratified and confirmed Executive Order 9066 and validly authorized enforcement of military orders issued pursuant to it.
- In light of wartime conditions, the Court found a substantial basis for concluding the ancestry-based curfew was a necessary protective measure against sabotage and espionage.
- Because the curfew conviction was sufficient to sustain the judgment given concurrent sentences, the Court did not reach the constitutionality of the exclusion order or broader removal measures.
Legal Principles
- Congress and the President, acting together under the war power, may authorize emergency measures restricting civilian liberty within designated military areas when supported by a substantial basis tied to national defense.
- A delegation is permissible where Congress supplies the basic policy and standards and leaves to the military commander fact-dependent implementation in response to changing conditions.
- Although the Fifth Amendment lacks an Equal Protection Clause, it bars federal action that is so discriminatory as to deny due process; the Court treated the curfew as consistent with due process given the asserted wartime necessity.
- When a defendant receives concurrent sentences on multiple counts, an appellate court may affirm without deciding additional counts if at least one conviction is legally sustainable.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Hirabayashi’s curfew conviction, concluding that Congress and the President validly authorized an ancestry-based curfew in designated military areas as an emergency wartime measure and that, on the record before it, the curfew did not violate Fifth Amendment due process; the Court expressly declined to decide the legality of the separate exclusion-related order.