Supreme Court Exam 3 Study Guide | Presidential
Powers & War Authority Verified Questions
Provided with A+ Graded Rationales Latest
Updated 2026
Presidential Powers
-Article II
-article II, section I: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America. . . .
-article II, section II: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”
-article II, section III: “[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
article I, section 8
-The Congress shall have Power . . .
◦ To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures
on Land and Water;
◦ To raise and support Armies . . .
◦ To provide and maintain a Navy
-Prize Cases (1863) – The President “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” but if there is
an invasion, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . .
without waiting for any special legislative authority.”
-The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a President has started without
congressional authorization.
What power does the President have over the armed forces?
He is the Commander in Chief, when called into the actual Service of the United States he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive departments,
upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices.
What duty does the Constitution impose upon the President to execute the laws?
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
,recent executive power controversies
-birthright citizenship
-DODGE
-firing agency heads
-dismantling federal agencies
-freezing foreign aid
-dismissing without prejudice NYC mayor Eric Adams indictment
US response to pearl harbor
-December 9, 1941 – Congress declared war
-February 19, 1942 – Executive Order 9066 authorized the Secretary of War and the military
commander to take “every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to
national defense material, national defense premises, and national defense utilities.”
-February 1942 – Congress held hearings about proposed
measures against Japanese Americans. California’s attorney general recommended removal
-March 1942 – Congress criminalized violation of military orders promulgated pursuant to E.O.
9066.
-March 1942 – Military established curfew
-May 1942 – Military removed Japanese Americans to internment camps
Hirabayashi v. US (1943)
-facts: Pacifist plaintiff challenged curfew after he failed to report and was sentenced to 3
months in jail.
-issue: Did the curfew order unconstitutionally discriminate against citizens of Japanese
ancestry?
-law: Fifth Amendment “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law”
-holding: (9-0) No. “Where . . .The conditions call for the exercise of judgment . . . By those
branches of the Government on which the Constitution has placed the responsibility of war
making, it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their actions or substitute its
judgment for theirs.”
-Even though “[d]istinctions between people based solely on their ancestry are . . . [o]dious to
a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality” . . . “in time of
,war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of
danger than those of a different ancestry.”
What did the military order upheld in Hirabayashi v. United States require?
Required individuals of Japanese descent to comply with a curfew
14th amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thread, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is true of Korematsu v. US?
-Korematsu challenged government action that discriminated on the basis of national origin
-Korematsu challenged government action that required him to move to an internment
facility
Korematsu v. US (1944)
-issue: Did the exclusion order go beyond the President’s and Congress’ war powers?
-holding: No. (6-3) “[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group
are immediately suspect” and subject to tests of “the most rigid scrutiny.”
◦ But . . . detention was a “military necessity” not based on race.
◦ “Exclusion . . . has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and
sabotage.”
◦ We can’t reject the findings of the military authorities.
-In dissent, Justice Jackson said Korematsu lay “like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of
any authority that can bring forth a plausible claim of urgent need.”
What did FDR's Executive Order 9066 do?
Authorized the secretary of war and the armed forces to remove the people of Japanese
ancestry from what they designated as military areas and surrounding communities in the
United States.
The military promulgated many orders pursuant to FDR’s Executive Order 9066. What did the
military order challenged in Korematsu require, and what reason did the Supreme Court give
for upholding it?
, The order set in motion the mass transportation and relocation of more than 120,000
Japanese people to sites the government called detention camps that were set up and
occupied in about 14 weeks. The Supreme Court held that the detention was a "military
necessity" not based on race.
Why was the Korematsu case reopened in 1983?
-A pro bono legal team with new evidence filed a "coram nobis" petition and re-opened the
40-year-old case in a federal district court on the basis of egregious government misconduct in
falsifying the record on military necessity. The lawyers showed that the governments legal
team had intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence from government intelligence
agencies.
-A professor discovered evidence that the U.S. Solicitor General's office did not truthfully
present all information in the original case
-The plaintiff asked the courts to reopen the case
On what legal ground did Justice Black uphold the exclusion order in Korematsu?
"all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately
suspect" and all subject to tests of "the most rigid scrutiny," not all such restrictions are
inherently unconstitutional. "Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of
such restrictions; racial antagonism never can."
On what legal ground did Justice Jackson dissent in Korematsu?
The nations wartime security concerns were not wholly adequate to strip Korematsu and the
other internees of their constitutionally protected civil rights.
In what year, and in what case, did the Supreme Court finally renounce Korematsu?
2018, Trump v. Hawaii
cases reopened and repudiated
-In 1948, Congress reimbursed Japanese Americans for property losses.
-In 1983, Japanese plaintiffs presented evidence that the
government intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence. The cases were re-opened and
the convictions were overturned
-In 1988, Congress apologized "on behalf of the people of the
United States for the evacuation, relocation, and internment of such citizens and permanent
resident aliens.“
Powers & War Authority Verified Questions
Provided with A+ Graded Rationales Latest
Updated 2026
Presidential Powers
-Article II
-article II, section I: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States
of America. . . .
-article II, section II: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”
-article II, section III: “[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
article I, section 8
-The Congress shall have Power . . .
◦ To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures
on Land and Water;
◦ To raise and support Armies . . .
◦ To provide and maintain a Navy
-Prize Cases (1863) – The President “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” but if there is
an invasion, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . .
without waiting for any special legislative authority.”
-The Supreme Court has never intervened to stop a war that a President has started without
congressional authorization.
What power does the President have over the armed forces?
He is the Commander in Chief, when called into the actual Service of the United States he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive departments,
upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices.
What duty does the Constitution impose upon the President to execute the laws?
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
,recent executive power controversies
-birthright citizenship
-DODGE
-firing agency heads
-dismantling federal agencies
-freezing foreign aid
-dismissing without prejudice NYC mayor Eric Adams indictment
US response to pearl harbor
-December 9, 1941 – Congress declared war
-February 19, 1942 – Executive Order 9066 authorized the Secretary of War and the military
commander to take “every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to
national defense material, national defense premises, and national defense utilities.”
-February 1942 – Congress held hearings about proposed
measures against Japanese Americans. California’s attorney general recommended removal
-March 1942 – Congress criminalized violation of military orders promulgated pursuant to E.O.
9066.
-March 1942 – Military established curfew
-May 1942 – Military removed Japanese Americans to internment camps
Hirabayashi v. US (1943)
-facts: Pacifist plaintiff challenged curfew after he failed to report and was sentenced to 3
months in jail.
-issue: Did the curfew order unconstitutionally discriminate against citizens of Japanese
ancestry?
-law: Fifth Amendment “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law”
-holding: (9-0) No. “Where . . .The conditions call for the exercise of judgment . . . By those
branches of the Government on which the Constitution has placed the responsibility of war
making, it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their actions or substitute its
judgment for theirs.”
-Even though “[d]istinctions between people based solely on their ancestry are . . . [o]dious to
a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality” . . . “in time of
,war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of
danger than those of a different ancestry.”
What did the military order upheld in Hirabayashi v. United States require?
Required individuals of Japanese descent to comply with a curfew
14th amendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thread, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is true of Korematsu v. US?
-Korematsu challenged government action that discriminated on the basis of national origin
-Korematsu challenged government action that required him to move to an internment
facility
Korematsu v. US (1944)
-issue: Did the exclusion order go beyond the President’s and Congress’ war powers?
-holding: No. (6-3) “[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group
are immediately suspect” and subject to tests of “the most rigid scrutiny.”
◦ But . . . detention was a “military necessity” not based on race.
◦ “Exclusion . . . has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and
sabotage.”
◦ We can’t reject the findings of the military authorities.
-In dissent, Justice Jackson said Korematsu lay “like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of
any authority that can bring forth a plausible claim of urgent need.”
What did FDR's Executive Order 9066 do?
Authorized the secretary of war and the armed forces to remove the people of Japanese
ancestry from what they designated as military areas and surrounding communities in the
United States.
The military promulgated many orders pursuant to FDR’s Executive Order 9066. What did the
military order challenged in Korematsu require, and what reason did the Supreme Court give
for upholding it?
, The order set in motion the mass transportation and relocation of more than 120,000
Japanese people to sites the government called detention camps that were set up and
occupied in about 14 weeks. The Supreme Court held that the detention was a "military
necessity" not based on race.
Why was the Korematsu case reopened in 1983?
-A pro bono legal team with new evidence filed a "coram nobis" petition and re-opened the
40-year-old case in a federal district court on the basis of egregious government misconduct in
falsifying the record on military necessity. The lawyers showed that the governments legal
team had intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence from government intelligence
agencies.
-A professor discovered evidence that the U.S. Solicitor General's office did not truthfully
present all information in the original case
-The plaintiff asked the courts to reopen the case
On what legal ground did Justice Black uphold the exclusion order in Korematsu?
"all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately
suspect" and all subject to tests of "the most rigid scrutiny," not all such restrictions are
inherently unconstitutional. "Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of
such restrictions; racial antagonism never can."
On what legal ground did Justice Jackson dissent in Korematsu?
The nations wartime security concerns were not wholly adequate to strip Korematsu and the
other internees of their constitutionally protected civil rights.
In what year, and in what case, did the Supreme Court finally renounce Korematsu?
2018, Trump v. Hawaii
cases reopened and repudiated
-In 1948, Congress reimbursed Japanese Americans for property losses.
-In 1983, Japanese plaintiffs presented evidence that the
government intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence. The cases were re-opened and
the convictions were overturned
-In 1988, Congress apologized "on behalf of the people of the
United States for the evacuation, relocation, and internment of such citizens and permanent
resident aliens.“
