«Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also seized the moment to finally overrule Korematsu.

“The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority,” he wrote. Citing language used by then-Justice Robert H. Jackson in a dissent to the 1944 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts added, “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and — to be clear — ‘has no place in law under the Constitution.’”»

I had wondered how they did it.  Sounds like they just explicitly invalidated it.  Not sure why.  The override sounds good, but…

«The fallacies in Korematsu were echoed in the travel ban ruling, warned Hiroshi Motomura, a University of California, Los Angeles, law professor who has written extensively about immigration.

“Overruling Korematsu the way the court did in this case reduces the overruling to symbolism that is so bare that it is deeply troubling, given the parts of the reasoning behind Korematsu that live on in today’s decision: a willingness to paint with a broad brush by nationality, race or religion by claiming national security grounds,” he said.»

So, was this a case of throwing out an old, supremely bad ruling in a way that has as little effect as possible?  “This thing, which was bad, is invalid, but this other thing, which is very similar, is good.”