[750] Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, esp. 93 (1942); Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
[751] Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, esp. 519 (1944).
[752] Op. cit., 219. Cf. his narrow view of the meaning of martial law in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, supra, pp. 22-23.
A More Effective Emergency Role for the Judiciary.
[753] Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944); Brannan v. Stark, 342 U.S. 451 (1952), are examples of the Supreme Court performing at this modest but effective level.
[754] The Prize Cases, 2 Black 635 (1863), and Hirabayashi v. United States, op. cit., and Korematsu v. United States, op. cit., are examples of the judiciary’s willingness to accept post hoc Congressional validation of an executive emergency program.
[The Steel Seizure Cases.]
[755] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579.
[756] 17 Fed. Reg. 3139.
[757] The phrase is that of James Willard Hurst. The Growth of American Law, (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1950), p. 397.