Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hirabayashi v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1943 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawWar PowersDelegationDue Processwar powercurfewJapanese ancestrymilitary area

Facts

After Pearl Harbor, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War and designated military commanders to prescribe military areas and impose restrictions on entry, exit, and presence there. Congress then enacted the Act of March 21, 1942, making it a misdemeanor knowingly to violate such military restrictions. General DeWitt designated military areas on the Pacific Coast and later imposed a curfew requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry in Military Area No. 1 to remain at home between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Hirabayashi, a United States citizen of Japanese ancestry living in Seattle, knowingly stayed away from his residence after 8:00 p.m. because he believed compliance would waive his rights as an American citizen.

Issue

Whether the curfew order imposed on persons of Japanese ancestry in a designated military area was unconstitutional because Congress had unlawfully delegated legislative power to the military commander, and whether the order's ancestry-based classification violated the Fifth Amendment. More specifically, the question was whether Congress and the Executive, acting together under the war power, could authorize and impose this curfew as a wartime defense measure against espionage and sabotage.

Rule

When Congress and the Executive act together under the war power, they may impose wartime restrictions such as a curfew in a military area if the restriction has a reasonable or rational basis in facts and circumstances supporting protection against espionage and sabotage. Congress does not unlawfully delegate legislative power by authorizing executive or military officers to determine whether facts exist that call for application of previously approved wartime standards and policies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a declared war, the President issues an order authorizing the Secretary of Defense and designated commanders to create military zones and impose restrictions needed to protect shipyards and munitions depots from espionage and sabotage. Congress then enacts a statute making it a misdemeanor knowingly to violate restrictions imposed under that presidential order. A commander in Norfolk imposes a 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. curfew on a defined class within the zone, and Lena Park knowingly violates it.

If Lena argues the curfew exceeds federal power because it restricts civilians in a city rather than soldiers on a battlefield, what is the strongest response under the majority opinion?

Explanation. The majority described the war power as the power to wage war successfully and said it reaches every matter substantially affecting the conduct and progress of war, including protection of war materials, defense facilities, and armed forces. The Court upheld a civilian curfew because Congress and the Executive acted together in a wartime defense program aimed at espionage and sabotage. It rejected the idea that such a measure must be confined to battlefield conditions or invalid merely because civilians in a domestic military area are affected.