; and (B) cited the racial characteristic justification from the Hirabayashi case to support the decision in the Korematsu case. (17) The dissenting Justices in the Korematsu case pointed out the blatant race-based deprivation of constitutional rights caused by the curfew and exclusion orders as follows: (A) Justice Jackson acknowledged the deference afforded to the other branches of the Federal Government in times of war but argued that such deference should not force the Court to ratify or enforce unconstitutional orders. Justice Jackson noted that Fred Korematsu should be found innocent, as his guilt was based only in that he was born of different racial stock . (B) Justice Murphy emphasized that the United States was not under martial law and that [s]uch exclusion goes over the very brink of constitutional power, and falls into the ugly abyss of racism . (C) Justice Roberts explicitly acknowledged the racist basis of the orders, stating that [t]he obvious purpose of the orders made, taken together, was to drive all citizens of Japanese ancestry into Assembly Centers within the zones of their residence, under pain of criminal prosecution. . Justice Roberts also explained the clear unconstitutional basis of the orders, pointing out that if a citizen was constrained by two laws, or two orders having the force of law, and obedience to one would violate the other, to punish him for violation of either would deny him due process of law. . (18) The public, Congress, and the President began efforts to address the wrongs of incarceration and to provide redress for individuals who had been incarcerated. (19) In 1971, Congress repealed the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, approved September 23, 1950 (64 Stat. 1019), which granted the President the power to detain individuals without due process and establish detention centers, through the passage of the Act entitled An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the establishment of detention camps, and for other purposes , approved September 25, 1971 (85