ובהמשך,
"There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some [citizens of Japanese ancestry – A.P.], the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short." (Korematsu, id., at 223-4)
שופטי המיעוט, ובראשם השופט Murphy, התייחסו לטיבו של הסיכון, ובצידו, לצורך בהתאמה רציונלית ומידתית בין אופי הסיכון והיקפו, לבין האמצעים הננקטים להגנה מפניו:
“In adjudging the military action taken in light of the then apparent dangers, we must not erect too high or too meticulous standards; it is necessary only that the action have some reasonable relation to the removal of the dangers of invasion, sabotage and espionage. But the exclusion, either temporary or permanently, of all persons with Japanese blood in their veins has no such reasonable relation. And that relation is lacking because the exclusion order necessarily must rely for its reasonableness upon the assumption that all persons of Japanese ancestry may have a dangerous tendency to commit sabotage and espionage and to aid our Japanese enemy in other ways… no reliable evidence is cited to show that such individuals were generally disloyal…or had otherwise by their behavior furnished reasonable ground for their exclusion as a group.” (Korematsu, id., at. 235-236)
--- סוף עמוד 228 ---
בהמשך, הסבירו שופטי המיעוט את מהות הסכנה הגדולה הטמונה בהסדרים גורפים המערבים ציבור שלם בלא אבחנה:
“[T]o infer that examples of individual disloyalty prove group disloyalty and justify discriminatory action against the entire group is to deny that under our system of law individual guilt is the sole basis for deprivation of rights… is to adopt one of the cruelest of the rationales used by our enemies to destroy the dignity of the individual and to encourage and open the door to discriminatory actions against other minority groups in the passions of tomorrow.” (Korematsu, id., at. 240)
פסיקת רוב שופטי בית המשפט העליון האמריקני בעניין Korematsu נחשבת בעיני רבים לאחת מן האפיזודות האפלות ביותר בהיסטוריה החוקתית של מדינות המערב. (ראו למשל: