Connection lost
Server error
Korematsu v. United States Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Forty years after his conviction for violating a WWII Japanese-American exclusion order, Korematsu sought to have it vacated. The court granted a writ of coram nobis, finding the government had knowingly suppressed crucial evidence that contradicted the military necessity rationale for the exclusion.
Legal Significance: This case revitalized the writ of coram nobis as a post-conviction remedy for fundamental injustices where the petitioner is no longer in custody. It also serves as a judicial acknowledgment of the governmental misconduct that underpinned the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision.
Korematsu v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1942, Fred Korematsu was convicted for violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34, which barred persons of Japanese ancestry from certain West Coast military areas. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 1944, deferring to the government’s claim of military necessity. In 1983, Korematsu petitioned for a writ of coram nobis to vacate the conviction, presenting newly discovered evidence of governmental misconduct. This evidence included a congressional commission report and internal Department of Justice memoranda from the 1940s. The documents revealed that government officials knew the military’s report justifying the exclusion contained “intentional falsehoods” and that intelligence from the FBI and FCC directly contradicted claims of espionage by Japanese Americans. This contrary evidence was knowingly withheld from the courts during the original proceedings. The government did not oppose vacating the conviction but moved to simply dismiss the indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a), a move the court rejected. Because Korematsu had long since served his sentence, he could not meet the “in custody” requirement for habeas corpus relief.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a district court grant a writ of coram nobis to vacate a long-standing conviction where the petitioner is no longer in custody but presents new evidence of fundamental error, specifically that the government knowingly suppressed critical information from the courts during the original proceedings?
Yes, the petition for a writ of coram nobis is granted. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecte
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a district court grant a writ of coram nobis to vacate a long-standing conviction where the petitioner is no longer in custody but presents new evidence of fundamental error, specifically that the government knowingly suppressed critical information from the courts during the original proceedings?
Conclusion
The decision vacates Korematsu's conviction on the basis of governmental misconduct, providing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Rule
A writ of coram nobis, available under the All Writs Act, 28 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exce
Legal Analysis
The court first rejected the government's counter-motion to dismiss the indictment under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.
