Plzz god bless

background: the decision was 6-3, and mr. justice black delivered the opinion of the court. the petitioner, an american citizen of japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in san leandro, california, a "military area," contrary to civilian exclusion order no. 34 [which carried out executive order 9066] of the commanding general of the western command, u. s. army, which directed that after may 9, 1942, all persons of japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. no question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the united states. the circuit court of appeals affirmed, and the importance of the constitutional question involved caused us to grant certiorari [in where a higher court reviews a lower courts ruling]. it should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. that is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. it is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.

1majority opinion: it is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen 2in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning 3his loyalty and good disposition towards the united states. our task would be simple, our duty 4clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp 5because of racial prejudice. regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers 6and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations 7that term implies -- we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. to cast this 8case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were 9presented, merely confuses the issue. korematsu was not excluded from the military area 10because of hostility to him or his race. he was excluded because we are at war with the
11japanese empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our 12west coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the 13military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of japanese ancestry be segregated 14from the west coast temporarily, and finally, because congress, reposing its confidence in this 15time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have 16the power to do just this. there was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military 17authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. we cannot -- by 18availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that at that time these actions 19were unjustified. affirmed.

1. the court argues that the case isn’t about racial prejudice but rather is about legitimate military concerns. what were those military concerns? (lines 7-11)

2. do you agree with the majority opinion that racial prejudice did not play a role in the u. s. government’s treatment of japanese americans during world war ii? explain your reasoning.