Executive Order 90661
Primary Documents
Core Literacy/EOC Application
Subject(s): American Government, American History
Grade levels: 9-12
Classroom time needed: Approximately 2 class period
Overview:
Executive Order 9066, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, had a
profound impact on approximately 120,000 individuals, many of whom were American citizens.
Until the final surrender of Japan in 1945, these individuals were denied their constitutional
rights, had their property taken from them and were subjected to untold personal hardship.
During this lesson, students will implement both EOC and Common Core reading/
comprehension standards and respond to questions on levels 1-4, Depth of Knowledge. For an
interactive version of this lesson plan visit: Http://quidproquo.wolfmoonllc.com/index.html or
http://www.mobar.com./citizenship
Focus: This lesson will ask students to read Executive order 9066, summarize its content,
explain the rationale for issuing the order and answer the legal question, “Did the president
and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the
rights of Americans of Japanese descent?”
Objectives:
1. Read and analyze primary document Executive Order 9066
2. Summarize the Supreme Court cases, Korematsu v. United States,
Hirabayashi v United States and Ex parte Endo.
3. Evaluate the impact of Executive order 9066 on the Constitutional rights of those Japanese
Americans held in internment camps.
4. Predict the possibility of issuing an executive order against another ethnic group within the
United States.
Essential Questions:
1. Why was Executive Order 9066 necessary?
2. Why did the Supreme Court uphold Executive Order 9066?
3. What “safeguards” are in place to prevent future executive orders that discriminate against
individuals based on race, religion or ethnicity?
1
Developed by Russ Sackreiter for The Missouri Bar, Department of Citizenship Education; 2013
1
Alignment:
EOC
1.A.a.
1.A.b.
2.A.a.
2.A.b.
2.C.b.
DOK
3
2
1
2
2
Common Core: Language Arts/Reading
1. Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative
and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone,
including analogies or allusions to other texts.
2. Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text
says explicitly, as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining
where the text leaves matters uncertain.
3. Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their
development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build
on one another to produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text.
Teaching strategies:
Briefly review and summarize the course of events from December 7, 1941 until the signing of
Executive Order 9066. In addition, describe the anger of Americans after the attack on Pearl
Harbor and the ‘justification” to stereotype and blame “all” individuals of Asian descent. Take
time to define and explain the difference between prejudice and stereotyping.
Next, distribute copies of Executive Order 9066 to each student, ask them to read the document
and be prepared to summarize it in their own words. After the students have had sufficient time
to read the document, place them in groups of 2-3 and have them collaborate on one summary.
When all groups are finished, have them share their summary and have the students identify
“likeness and difference” between summaries.
For analysis of the actual document, students may remain in their small groups or work
individually to respond to the following questions. Students must “justify” their decision with
specific examples.
Why did President Roosevelt feel it was necessary to issue Executive Order 9066? Do you feel
he faced political pressure from various groups?
Does the executive order mention any ethnic or racial group by name? Who is given the
authority to implement the order and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of power?
2
Read the case summaries of Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v United States and Ex
parte Endo. What sections of Executive Order 9066 were challenged? Explain why the court
ruled in favor of the government. Would today’s Court rule the same way.
After reviewing the U.S Constitution, do you feel this sort of ethnic discrimination could ever
happen today or in the future?
Assessment:
Write a three paragraph essay identifying and explaining three alternatives the U.S.
government could use instead of internment in camps.
Sources:
1. History Matters (Executive Order 9066), text and background
2. Korematsu v United States (http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutionallaw/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/equality-and-the-constitution/korematsu-v-unitedstates-2/)
3. Hirabayashi v United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirabayashi_v._United_States)
4. Ex parte End (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo)
5. Streetlaw (Streetlaw (http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/325/Summary_of_the_Decision)
Bibliography:
"Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation." Executive Order 9066: The
President Authorizes Japanese Relocation. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Aug. 2013.
"Korematsu v. United States | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Aug. 2013.
N.p., n.d. Web.
3
Document One
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066
The President
EXECUTIVE ORDER
AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY AREAS
WHEREAS the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against
espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and
national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended
by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655
(U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States,
and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of
War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or
any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas
in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine,
from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any
person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War
or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is
hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such
transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of
the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to
accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality
shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the
Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of
the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted
areas.
I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to
take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to
enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized
to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority
to accept assistance of state and local agencies.
I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and
other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in
carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food,
4
clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities,
and services.
This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore
granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as
limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with
respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8,
1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty
and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 19, 1942
5
Document Two
6
Document Three
Summary Korematsu v. United States
Source: Streetlaw (http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/325/Summary_of_the_Decision)
“In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States. Justice Black wrote the majority
opinion. The majority concluded that the President and Congress did not act outside of their constitutional authority,
and that the exclusion order did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Murphy dissented, arguing that the
exclusion order was primarily based on racism. Justice Jackson and Justice Roberts also dissented.
The justices in the majority compared the case to Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), a previous case in which the
Court had upheld a military order imposing a curfew on people of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast. In
that case, the Court concluded that the curfew order was within the war powers of Congress and within the authority
of the President as Commander in Chief because its purpose was to further the national defense during wartime by
preventing espionage and sabotage. The exclusion order at issue in Korematsu was justified in the same
way. Because the exclusion order was issued during wartime, the Court gave great deference to the judgment of
military authorities, Congress, and the President, all of whom deemed the measure necessary. The justices
concluded that the Court “[could] not say that the war-making branches of the Government did not have ground for
believing that in a critical hour such persons … constituted a menace to the national defense and safety.” According
to this reasoning, the power of Congress and the President are greatly expanded during wartime, in which “the
power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.”
The Court decided that the exclusion order did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. While the justices acknowledged that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single
racial group are immediately suspect,” they determined that all such restrictions were not necessarily
unconstitutional. The Court ruled that even though the exclusion order only targeted a specific racial group, it was
not based on hostility towards those of Japanese ancestry. Rather, it was because military authorities did not have
the time or resources to efficiently separate those who were disloyal from those who were loyal that all people of
Japanese ancestry as a group were subject to the exclusion order. If the exclusion order had been based solely on
racial prejudice, however, it would be unquestionably unconstitutional.
Justice Murphy wrote a strongly worded dissent. Calling the exclusion order “the legalization of racism,” he
believed that it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He acknowledged that in
wartime, military authorities must be given great deference as those best equipped to make decisions to protect the
security of the nation, but he argued that military decisions must still be subject to judicial oversight. Measures
deemed necessary by military authorities must be reasonably related to preventing invasion, sabotage or
espionage. According to Justice Jackson, that standard was not met here because there was no evidence proving that
people of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast were a threat to the safety of the United States. Instead, the
decision to force them into internment camps was based on “an accumulation of much of the misinformation, halftruths and insinuations” that had long been the source of racial prejudice against Japanese Americans. He compared
the exclusion order to the “abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which
this nation is now pledged to destroy,” and concluded that the exclusion order violated the Fourteenth Amendment
by “fall[ing] into the ugly abyss of racism.”
7