Supreme court: Fred Korematsu..?

Question

40 years after Fred Korematsu was convicted he decided to challenge it again. His case was heard as a corum nobis case (whic is used only in special circumstances to correct errors in a criminal conviction). The court ruled that newly uncovered evidence revealed the existence of a manifest injustice which—had it been known at the time—would likely have changed the Supreme Court's decision.A series of documents recovered from the National Archives showing that the government had withheld important and relevant information from the Supreme Court that demonstrated that the Army had altered evidence to make it appear that Japanese Americans posed a greater threat of spying and disloyalty. The corum nobis decision overturned Korematsu's conviction based on the faulty evidence, but did NOT overturn the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's decision.
MY QUESTION: Why do you think the District court did this? and what exactly does the "did not overturn the constitutionality.." thing mean?

Answer 1

The Korematsu decision by the Supreme Court set forth two important holdings -- first, that any laws which are (on their face) racially discriminator must pass the strictest scrutiny -- meaning that only the most necessary of such laws are allowed. That part is a core element of constitutional law.

The Korematsu decision also held that the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was justified, given that the US faced such a severe threat that only by locking up tens of thousands of citizens (without trial) could the US protect itself. That part is one of the greatest travesties of all time.

The District court probably did it because they recognized that the actions taken by the Supreme Court were a travesty and one of the most shameful moments in the history of the federal courts -- and by doing this, it at least gives some vindication for this man and his family without having any significant effect on anything or anyone else.

The action by the district court did not change the constitutional issues and holdings in the Supreme Court decision -- for many reasons, not the lest of which is that a district court cannot overturn a supreme court decision. The district court can vacate a conviction, but it cannot change constitutional interpretations of the higher court.

Answer 2

Itis my belief the District Court ruled this way because 1) they had jurisdiction to do so, and 2) it was the correct way to rule based on the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court did not overturn the Supreme Court's constitutional right to rule, because they could not. The Supreme Court did have the constitutional right to form an opinion, and state that opinion in a ruling. There is nothing anyone can do about that, except to state unequivocally that the ruling itself was wrong, and needed to be overturned.

Not all United States Supreme Court rulings have been correct, or constitutionally supported. The Supreme Court has been a political arm of the current ruling party many times inthe sad black history of this country; such as in 2007 and 2008; when Alito, Roberts and Thomas and Scalia will rule only as the Conservative Party of the World, disguised as the Heritage Foundation, tells them to rule. That is just a sad fact, and there isn't a lot we will be able to do about it.