Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to corner President Donald Trump’s Justice Department nominees on the question of judicial authority, but in doing so, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) leaned on one of the most infamous Supreme Court decisions in history to make his case. During questioning of solicitor general nominee Dean John Sauer, Durbin invoked Korematsu v. U.S., a ruling that upheld the forced internment of Japanese Americans, as proof that government officials must always comply with court orders.
Durbin pressed Sauer on whether officials could ever defy a court ruling. “As bad as it was, that court order was followed for years, was it not?” he asked, appearing to suggest that even an unjust ruling must be upheld. Sauer responded that Korematsu had been widely condemned and that history might have been better if it had not been enforced. He also referenced Dred Scott as another instance where strict compliance with the courts led to disaster.
Funny how Dems are trying to pin Republican judicial noms for rightly saying they won't blindly follow egregious court orders without question
Hawley won't defend the Korematsu, Plessy, or Dred Scott decisions
And any other judge of good conscience wouldn't either pic.twitter.com/eEQurfYDV9
— Bernadette Breslin (@bernbreslin_) February 27, 2025
The debate centered on whether government officials have any leeway in following court decisions. Democrats framed the issue as a question of upholding the rule of law, while Republicans pushed back, arguing that not all rulings deserve obedience. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) strongly objected to Durbin’s framing, stating that some of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history should have been rejected rather than followed.
Senator @HawleyMO calls out Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin for defending the Supreme Court’s Korematsu decision upholding Japanese internment camps:
“I thought it sounded to me like my friend, Senator Durbin, was defending the Korematsu decision — which I think is one of the worst… pic.twitter.com/WfotWzhjQf
— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) February 26, 2025
“I thought it sounded to me like my friend, Sen. Durbin, was defending the Korematsu decision, which I think is one of the worst and most abhorrent decisions in the history of the United States,” Hawley said. He pointed out that officials in the past have resigned rather than carry out morally indefensible laws, referencing the Fugitive Slave Act, which required escaped slaves to be returned to captivity even in free states.
No amount of damage control from Sen. @ChrisCoons absolves @SenatorDurbin of the insane assertions he made on defending decisions like those in Korematsu or Dred Scott. 9/x
— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) February 26, 2025
Aaron Reitz, another Trump nominee, echoed Sauer’s point that blanket statements about court rulings are difficult to justify. While officials generally follow judicial orders, Reitz explained that some cases present moral and legal dilemmas.
Groks take: The Korematsu v. United States decision is widely considered indefensible for several reasons, rooted in both legal and moral failures:
Violation of Civil Liberties: The ruling upheld the forced relocation and internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans—most of whom…— ReplaceLoisFrankel2026 (@rafael_pin49857) February 27, 2025
Durbin’s argument raises questions about how far Democrats are willing to go in enforcing judicial rulings, even those that history has judged as deeply flawed. Though Korematsu was condemned by the Supreme Court in 2018, Durbin seemed to use it as an example of how courts should be obeyed — regardless of the consequences.
