1. When the exclusion order was enacted, all danger of Japanese invasion of that designated area had disappeared. Additionally, removal from our homes for a seemingly indefinite period is a far greater infringement on our rights than a curfew.

2. The order limits the rights of a group of people based on their nationality, therefore violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In its inclusion of all people of Japanese ancestry, regardless of loyalty or citizenship, the order sweeps too broadly. The racist order fails to protect the nation from the real threat that spies may pose.

3. This order is inconsistent with basic governmental institutions and constitutional guarantees, and discriminates unjustly on the basis of race and national origin.

1. This exclusion order is similar to the curfew order we have already upheld; both are intended to prevent espionage in danger zones in a time of war.

2. The order was narrowly tailored to the purpose it was designed to serve. This is not a matter of racial prejudice but of military necessity. It is not within the Court's power to question the judgment of the military and Congress that certain disloyal members of the population constitute a menace to the national defense and safety.

3. In assessing the constitutionality of this order, the Court must balance the rights of the government to act in its own best interest in times of emergency against the individual's constitutionally guaranteed rights. We are living in a time in which the former must trump the latter.