Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2019
Abstract
In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court claimed to overrule its infamous Korematsu decision. This Essay argues that this claim is both empty and grotesque. It is empty because a decision to overrule a prior case is not meaningful unless it specifies which propositions the Court is disavowing. Korematsu stands for many propositions, not all of which are agreed upon, but the Hawaii Court underspecifies what it meant to overrule. The Court’s claim of overruling Korematsu is grotesque because its emptiness means to conceal its disturbing affinity with that case.
Disciplines
Immigration Law | Judges | Law | Law and Race | Military, War, and Peace | President/Executive Department | Religion Law
Recommended Citation
Jamal Greene,
Is Korematsu Good Law?,
128
Yale L. J. F.
629
(2019).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2817
Included in
Immigration Law Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Race Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, Religion Law Commons