US President Trump's "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" was quickly "swept under the legal rug" by the judiciary, with the result that the second order "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." was signed by Trump and that also appears headed for another quick "sweep under the legal rug"
However, these present a rare opportunity for the US Supreme Court to overturn these kinds of orders, thus vacating the precedent set by the horrendous Korematsu decision (a decision so terrible that even Scalia spoke against it when he was still alive) and reversing the precedent set by upholding Executive orders like order 9066
Yes, there have been lesser legal and political attempts to right the wrongs created by Korematsu. Roosevelt suspended 9066 almost a year before the end of the war, Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 over the objections of most Republicans, and Korematsu's conviction was reversed coram nobis, and there have been perhaps hundreds of "legal scholars" who have used Korematsu as an example of a bad legal decision.
But, SCOTUS has made the claim that they cannot overturn Korematsu because nobody has presented an equivalent legal case to them and as a result it remains the law of the land, odious though it may be.
It would seem to me that if SCOTUS really wants to fix their decision in Korematsu they would immediately take up Trumps' current Executive Order and rule it unconstitutional, thus correcting that wrong, with the additional benefit that the citizens of the United States would not have to waste further time in the future being distracted by these sorts of EO's from the Trump administration. It would further seem that the Congressional Republicans who claim to want smaller more limited government would carry the banner for this (since it would clearly limit the power of the President as well as atone for their own appalling actions opposing Ronald Reagan in 1988). In short, it is something that would benefit everyone, would be opposed by nobody, and so I am wondering if there has been any discussion in the legal community (perhaps quiet, behind-closed-doors discussion) to getting this done?