Korematsu v. United States,323 U.S. 214 (1944),was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. The decision has been widely criticized,with some scholars describing it as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry",and as "a stain on American jurisprudence". The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Chief Justice John Roberts repudiated the Korematsu decision in his majority opinion in the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii.
Bernstein v. United States was a series of court cases filed by Daniel J. Bernstein,a mathematics Ph.D. student at the University of California,Berkeley,challenging U.S. government restrictions on the export of cryptographic software. In the early 1990s,the U.S. government classified encryption software as a "munition," imposing strict export controls. As a result,Bernstein was required to register as an arms dealer and obtain an export license before he could publish his encryption software online.
Capital punishment is not allowed to be carried out in the U.S. state of California,due to both a standing 2006 federal court order against the practice and a 2019 moratorium on executions ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom. The litigation resulting in the court order has been on hold since the promulgation of the moratorium. Should the moratorium end and the freeze conclude,executions could resume under the current state law.
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo,323 U.S. 283 (1944),was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18,1944,in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast,which it had found not to violate citizens' rights in the Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date,the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.
Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu was an American civil rights activist who resisted the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Shortly after the Imperial Japanese Navy launched its attack on Pearl Harbor,President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066,which authorized the removal of individuals of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast from their homes and their mandatory imprisonment in incarceration camps,but Korematsu instead challenged the orders and became a fugitive.
A&M Records,Inc. v. Napster,Inc.,239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant,peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster,could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.
Hirabayashi v. United States,320 U.S. 81 (1943),was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group's ancestors originated. The case arose out of the issuance of Executive Order 9066 following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the U.S. entry into World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had authorized military commanders to secure areas from which "any or all persons may be excluded",and Japanese Americans living in the West Coast were subject to a curfew and other restrictions before being removed to internment camps. The plaintiff,Gordon Hirabayashi,was convicted of violating the curfew and had appealed to the Supreme Court. Yasui v. United States was a companion case decided the same day. Both convictions were overturned in coram nobis proceedings in the 1980s.
Hepting v. AT&T,439 F.Supp.2d 974,was a class action lawsuit argued before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of customers of the telecommunications company AT&T. The plaintiffs alleged that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the personal communications of American citizens,including AT&T customers,whose communications were routed through AT&T's network.
Adolphus Frederic St. Sure was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation,452 F. Supp. 2d 946,was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7,2006,in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda,and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation",apply to websites and/or the Internet,or are restricted to physical places.
Yasui v. United States,320 U.S. 115 (1943),was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of curfews used during World War II when they were applied to citizens of the United States. The case arose out of the implementation of Executive Order 9066 by the U.S. military to create zones of exclusion along the West Coast of the United States,where Japanese Americans were subjected to curfews and eventual removal to relocation centers. This Presidential order followed the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought America into World War II and inflamed the existing anti-Japanese sentiment in the country.
Kathryn Jocelyn Mickle Werdegar is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California,serving from June 3,1994,to August 31,2017.
Jeremy Don Fogel is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Fogel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. He was a judge for the municipal court and superior court of Santa Clara County,California from 1981 to 1998. He served as Director of the Federal Judicial Center from 2011 to 2018.
Wayne Mortimer Collins was a civil rights attorney who worked on cases related to the Japanese American evacuation and internment.
M. Gerald Schwartzbach is an American criminal defense attorney.
Edward John Davila is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was previously a California state court judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court from 2001 to 2011.
Metallica,et al. v. Napster,Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case that focused on copyright infringement,racketeering,and unlawful use of digital audio interface devices. Metallica vs. Napster,Inc. was the first case that involved an artist suing a peer-to-peer file sharing ("P2P") software company.
William Horsley Orrick III is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He had a long career as a lawyer in private practice in San Francisco,and served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice during the Obama administration.
James Joseph Donato is an American attorney and judge. He has served as United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California since 2014.
Hirabayashi v. United States,828 F.2d 591,is a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and recognized for both its historical and legal significance. The case is historically significant for vacating the World War II–era convictions of Japanese American civil rights leader Gordon Hirabayashi. Those convictions were affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1943 decision Hirabayashi v. United States. The case is legally significant for establishing the standard to determine when any federal court in the Ninth Circuit may issue a writ of coram nobis.
