,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
That's true:
"The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority," Roberts wrote in Trump v. Hawaii, the 'Muslim ban' case.
"The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority," Roberts wrote in Trump v. Hawaii, the 'Muslim ban' case.
Roberts wrote that in a passage denouncing the "gravely wrong" Korematsu decision, which upheld Japanese-American incarceration.
Fred Korematsu's daughter condemned Roberts' decision as having "replaced one injustice with another nearly 75 years later."
Fred Korematsu's daughter condemned Roberts' decision as having "replaced one injustice with another nearly 75 years later."
In invoking Korematsu, Roberts had been responding to a blistering dissent by Justice Sotomayor, who found "stark parallels" between that case and the travel ban case.
Roberts called the comparison "wholly inapt."
Korematsu's daughter disagreed with him, agreed with Sotomayor.
Roberts called the comparison "wholly inapt."
Korematsu's daughter disagreed with him, agreed with Sotomayor.
You can revisit @CourthouseNews' coverage of that opinion and dissent here, from when the story broke nearly one year ago. courthousenews.com/trump-travel-b…
