Beginning chapter sixteen Jeanne recounts the first of the cases being Gordon Hirabayshi reciting "Gordon Hirabayshi... challenged the evacuation order... challenged racial bias and civil rights... courts upheld the army's decision." (Houston 113) This recount from the story demonstrates the first real example of bias in the real U.S courts beyond the events in the book, this bias leads to the idea of almost dictator-like power for the courts and fear of the public to uplift them to such a stature as well as representing the inability of Japanese Americans to exercise their right to a fair and free trial.

In the next passage Jeanne recounts Fred Korematsu remembering his case as having "Ignored the evacuation order... had plastic plastic surgery done to his face... when the FBI caught up with him... racial bias was challenged again... courts upheld the army's decision." (Houston 114) While it may seem repetitive to recite another case in which racial bias was challenged and upheld it further more demonstrates the fear felt by the Japanese for one to go through a process as expensive as plastic surgery, a expensive and extensive process, to change one's guise as he tries to flee from his persecution. One could view the second ruling as hardening the final opinion in the courts of Japanese Americans and the opinion of the public as to their inaction to stop them.

Many years after these events during the investigation of the life of Mr. Hirabayshi the reporters found that "The government had lied... it had obtained evacuation orders based on false information."(Ehrlich 9). This reveals and illustrates a strong idea of fear and anger felt by the government to go as far as to falsify information to seal citizens away as well proving constitutions inability to protect its citizens at the same time justifying the actions of the Japanese to try to flee and escape their persecution. As the court cases and actions develop a sense of hopelessness in the persecuted while revealing a sense of insecurity, fear, and anger in the U.S court system and its people continuing for this part of the war.

A keen example of these values would be written by Associate Justice William O. Douglas who ruled the following, "Her petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleges that she is a loyal and law abiding citizen of the United States, that no charge has been made against her that she is unlawfully detained (Ex Parte Endo 294).” The previous excerpt shows the intent of this ruling which exclaims that the internment was not ruled on by any court because if it was it would be striked down. Another meaning which is derived from this ruling is that the court was fully aware and complicit to this ruling, which shows that because of the dramatic attack perpetrated on December eleventh their opposition may seem unpatriotic.

Another statement made by Justice Douglas shows another angle of the illegality of the ruling when he wrote, "A citizen who is concededly loyal presents no problem of espionage or sabotage. Loyalty is a matter of the mind and heart, not of race, creed, or color (Ex Parte Endo 302).” This excerpt from Chief Douglas once again reiterates the general sentiment that the internment was illegal; this is shown in Korematsu v. United States in which the supreme court ruled on the illegality of the internment which was six to four showed the opinion of the courts that any loyal American citizen musn't be detained. It also upholds the American value of equality where Justice Douglas upholds that anyone who is detained solely because of their race has been trespassed on as said according to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

However, to really drive that point home Justice Murphy writes, “Racial discrimination of this nature bears no reasonable relation to military necessity, and is utterly foreign to the ideals and traditions of the American people (Ex Parte Endo 308).” This excerpt exemplifies just the pure scale of illegality which the internment existed in due to it being purely a law not based on loyalty but race. Besides the legal aspect Justice Murphy explicitly writes about how such a detainment goes directly against core American values.

These excerpts all show a common denominator which shows the illegality of the internment. Such an illegality goes as far as to contradict American values and thus the Interment regime’s legacy persists to this day.

Eventually however the flames of rage died down, and people were able to see through a clearer lens. This brought previous laws into question, which gave birth for the movement for the McCarran-Walter Act (Public Law 414). “PublicLaw 414 of 1952, which overturned restrictive federal policies finally making it possible for immigrants of Asian ancestry like - Ko - to naturalize as US citizens… (Houston 187).” This shows how people’s minds cleared, and they realized that what they were doing was unfair, and hurting American citizens just because of their heritage. 

This is further exemplified when the president himself says that previous laws, “‘discriminates, deliberately and intentionally, against many peoples of the world.’ and would ‘perpetuate injustices of long standing’ (Toledo Blade 8).” The growth shown here is reminiscent of a textbook villain, a story in which one does bad things and realizes the error of their ways, and repents. Overall these show how the US and their ideals and stereotypes evolved from thinking they are all Japanese spies to normal citizens to be treated fairly.