Did the judges rule in favor of the Japanese Americans or against them? What affect did the 3rd case have on Manzanar and other Japanese American camps?

In the first case, which challenges an arrest on the basis of breaking curfew, racial bias, and the abuse of civil rights by the forced evacuation, the court upholds the evacuation on basis of "wartime necessity" (p. 113).

In the second case, which is based on the exclusion order. Atfer a young Japanese man is arrested, he argues that he has been detained because of racial bias, and as a result, his civil rights had been violated. The Supreme Court once again upholds the Army's evacuation of the Japanese.

The third case challenges the internment itself when an employee of the California Highway Department files an appeal for habeas corpus arguing that her forced internment in the camp at Topaz in Utah is illegal. The court rules in her favor stating that that loyal citizens, who've been assumed disloyal, cannot be detained against their will.

The third case was decided December of 1944, resulting in the closing of all camps, and the freedom of all internees, who would now be allowed to relocate or return to their previous community. Sadly, the anti-Japanese sentiment had increased, the propaganda continued, and a number of organizations popped up during the war, whose goals were to prevent the Japanese from returning to the West Coast.