Democrats Invoke Japanese Internment To Justify Blind Obedience To Courts
Democrats are now pointing to one of the darkest rulings in U.S. history — the Supreme Court’s Korematsu decision, which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II — as proof that officials must always obey court orders. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) made the argument during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, pressing President Donald Trump’s solicitor general nominee, Dean John Sauer, on whether government officials should ever defy judicial rulings.
“Let’s go back to Korematsu,” Durbin said. “Describe for me that circumstance that you think relieved an official from obeying a court order. As bad as it was, that court order was followed for years, was it not?” His question implied that the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans was justified at the time because officials followed a court order, an argument that left conservatives stunned.
Sauer responded by pointing out that Korematsu has since been “correctly repudiated by virtually everyone” and suggested that some historians may believe the country would have been better off if it had not been obeyed. His exchange with Durbin was part of a broader debate over whether federal officials should ever question the legitimacy of judicial rulings, particularly those viewed as historically or morally abhorrent.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) took issue with Durbin’s stance, pointing out the dangers of unquestioning obedience to the courts. “I thought it sounded to me like my friend, Sen. Durbin, was defending the Korematsu decision, which I think is one of the worst and most abhorrent decisions in the history of the United States,” Hawley said. He then referenced other controversial cases, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that Black Americans could not be citizens, and the Fugitive Slave Act, which forced law enforcement in free states to return escaped slaves.
“I can’t believe that it’s the position of anybody on this committee that in the face of decisions like Korematsu and Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act that we should say to people, ‘Oh, just grin and bear it. Don’t say anything, enforce the law,’” Hawley added.
Durbin’s remarks came as Democrats grilled Sauer, along with other Trump nominees Aaron Reitz and Harmeet Dhillon, on their views about judicial authority. The issue has become increasingly relevant as Vice President J.D. Vance and other conservatives have questioned the expansive use of judicial rulings to block Trump administration policies.
Reitz, nominated for an assistant attorney general position, explained that the conservative legal view acknowledges that courts do not have unlimited power over executive decisions. When pressed by Durbin, Reitz noted that while officials are generally bound by court rulings, the issue is complex and requires case-by-case evaluation.
Sauer similarly pushed back, refusing to give a blanket endorsement of absolute judicial authority. “Generally, if there is a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it,” he said. However, when asked about exceptions, he pointed to Korematsu and Dred Scott as examples where blind compliance led to disastrous outcomes.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) warned against defying federal court orders outright but noted that officials have legal avenues to challenge rulings. “Don’t ever, ever take the position that you’re not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever,” Kennedy said. “You can disagree with it. Within the bounds of legal ethics, you can criticize it. You can appeal it, or you can resign.”
Despite this, Democrats appear intent on using Korematsu — the ruling widely condemned as a national disgrace — as a justification for unwavering obedience to court decisions, raising serious concerns about how far they are willing to take judicial authority.
