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. . korematsu was not excluded from the military area because of hostility to him or his race. he was excluded because we are at war with the japanese empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our west coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of japanese ancestry be segregated from the west coast temporarily, and, finally, because congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders -- as inevitably it must -- determined that they should have the power to do just this. there was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. we cannot -- by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight -- now say that, at that time, these actions were unjustified. - from korematsu v. united states (1944) on what grounds did the supreme court uphold the constitutionality of the limiting the rights of japanese americans during world war ii? a) japanese americans were not citizens. eliminate b) the loss of rights was only temporary. c) the united states was at war with germany. d) national security was potentially threatened.