Hirabayashi v. U.S. (1943) and Korematsu v. U.S. (1945):

• Hirabayashi: Gordon Hirabayashi, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, challenged a curfew imposed on Japanese Americans on the West Coast following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
• Korematsu: Fred Korematsu, another Japanese American citizen, defied an exclusion order forcing Japanese Americans into internment camps.

Court Holdings:

• Hirabayashi: The Supreme Court upheld the curfew, citing the government’s wartime authority to take measures for national security.
• Korematsu: The Court upheld the exclusion order, deferring to the government’s judgment about the necessity of the measure.

Comparison and Contrast:

• Similarities: Both cases involved Japanese American citizens challenging wartime restrictions based on race. The Court used a national security justification in both decisions.
• Differences: Hirabayashi challenged a curfew, while Korematsu challenged internment. The exclusion order in Korematsu was more severe and raised additional concerns about due process.

Your Opinion (Hirabayashi & Korematsu):

These cases are controversial. Some argue the Court was wrong to defer to the government’s wartime actions, which resulted in racial discrimination. Others believe the Court’s decisions were justified given the wartime context and perceived security threat.

Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008):

• Rasul: Enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan challenged their detention without habeas corpus rights.
• Hamdi: A U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan as an enemy combatant challenged his detention without charges or a hearing.
• Boumediene: Enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay challenged their continued detention without trial.

Issues and Decisions:

• Rasul & Hamdi: The Court initially ruled enemy combatants could not use habeas corpus, but later allowed some detainees to challenge their detention.
• Boumediene: The Court granted enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay the right to petition for habeas corpus, allowing them to challenge their detention in federal court.

Your Opinion (Rasul, Hamdi, Boumediene):

These cases address the balance between national security and due process rights during wartime. Some argue detainees deserve full rights, while others believe some limitations are justified.

Department of Defense Military Commission Order No. 1 (2001):

• Purpose: Established procedures for trying non-U.S. citizens accused of terrorism by military commission.
• Commission Composition: Military officers appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
• Procedures: Hearings with limited rights for the accused, including limited access to evidence and counsel.
• Rights for the Accused: Right to an attorney, right to present evidence and witnesses (with restrictions), right to a public trial (at the discretion of the military).
• Evidence: Allowed hearsay evidence and classified information that may not be disclosed to the defendant.
• Sentencing: Military commissions could impose sentences, including death.
• Review Process: Limited review by a Court of Criminal Appeals, with the President having final authority.

Order No. 1 and Due Process Concerns:

The order has been criticized for denying some rights typically afforded in civilian criminal trials, raising concerns about fairness and due process.

This is a general overview. Legal research would require consulting the specific court opinions and the full text of Military Commission Order No. 1.