CRCL final exam part 1 study guide Flashcards
What is Plessy v. Ferguson?
(1896 fuller court) Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. Plessy agreed to participate in a test of the act, he was arrested. Plessy argued that SCA violated 13th & 14th amends. MO by Brown, for Ferg: upheld state-imposed racial segregation the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans.
What is Sweatt v. Painter?
(1950 Vinson court) Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of TX Law School, he was denied because he was black. (school tried to open a separate law school for POC) MO by Vinson for Sweatt: the law school for POC was unequal to the TX law school, the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The separation would also harm students’ abilities to compete in the legal arena. But it did not reexamine plessy
What is Brown v. Board of Education 1 & 2?
(1954 &1955 Warren Court) Topeka, Kansas refused to enroll Linda Brown at the school that was closest to the family’s home. A group said that the segragation policy violated the 14th amend. MO by Warren for Brown: Court re-evaluated the “separate but equal” doctrine, and determined that segregated facilities were, in reality, unequal. public school segregation had damaging effects and ingrained a feeling of inferiority in black children. So plessy is overturned 2: Some states were not desegregating the schools, so Warren said: The Brown I decision shall be implemented “with all deliberate speed.”
What is Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education?
(1971 Burger Court) After Brown little progress had been made in desegregating public schools, ex. was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC. Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? MO by Burger: If a violation of a mandate to desegregate happened then DC had broad and flexible powers to remedy it. 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate “starting points” for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts’ remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.
What is Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1?
(2007 & Roberts Court) The District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to popular schools. (2nd most important was race, meant to maintain diversity). Parents said this violated 14h amend, Civil Rights Act 1964, and WA state law. MO by Roberts for parents: used strict scrutiny (it failed), the District’s plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity (“white” and “non-white”), Court held that the District’s tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity.
What is Grutter v. Bollinger?
(2003 & Rehnquist court) Barbara Grutter, a white resident of MI applied to the University of MI Law School. She had good grades but was denied. School admits it uses race as a factor bc it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.” MO by O’Conner for Boll: EPA doesn’t prohibit the school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. No acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race.
What is Gratz v. Bollinger?
(2003 & Rehnquist court) University of MI uses a point system for admissions, race contributes a large amount of points. Gratz (white) was told she was qualified but denied admission, and filed a suit. MO by Rehnquist for Gratz: The Court held that the policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue.
What is Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center?
(1985 & Burger court) Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally disabled. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance (violate EPA of the center & its residents?) MO by White for LC: the denial of the special use permit to LC was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconst under the EPA. The Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a “quasi-suspect class,” it still found that it did not pass rational review (law didn’t have rational basis)
What is Craig v. Boren?
(1976 & Burger Court) An OK law prohibited the sale of “non intoxicating” 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Craig and a vendor challenged the law (violate EPA?) MO by Brennan for Craig: the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications, the statistics relied on by OK were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety, so the law failed intermediate scrutiny (established that intermediate scrutiny is used for gender discrimination).
a. Strict scrutiny
b. Intermediate scrutiny
c. Rational basis review
a. compelling interest, narrowly tailored, least restrictive means (free speech)
b. its law, policy, or practice is substantially related to achieving an important government interest. (gender)
c. there must be a reasonable connection between the law and the government’s legitimate interest
What is U.S. v. Virginia?
(1996 & Rehnquist court) VMI was a male-only undergraduate school. U.S. brought a suit saying that violated the EPA, VA made a women’s only school to compensate. MO by Ginsberg for U.S.: VMI failed to show “exceedingly persuasive justification” for its gender-biased admissions policy. VI failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI’s male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity and VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. Court required that “all gender-based classifications today” be evaluated with “heightened scrutiny.” and VMI failed that scrutiny.
What is Romer v. Evans?
(1996 & Rehnquist court) Does Amend 2 of Colorado’s State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the EPA? MO by Kennedy: It singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. A law can be upheld, even if it violates EPA if it advances a legitimate gov interest, depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. “a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate gov interest”
What is Plyler v. Doe?
(1982 & Burger court) A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens, did that violate EPA? MO by Brennan: Illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the U.S. or TX, are people “in any ordinary sense of the term” and, therefore, are afforded 14th amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because TX could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a “compelling state interest,” the Court struck down the law.
What is San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez?
(1973 & Burger court) Texas public schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. Rodriguez challenged that and said it underprivileged poor students. Did TX violate EPA by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts? MO by Powell, for San: didn’t use strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in TX. This system is used in many states so it’s not “so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.” On the question of wealth and education the court said, “the EPA does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”
What is Regents of University of California v. Bakke?
(1978 & Burger court) Bakke, a white man, was rejected from regents twice. School had 16 reserved places for minorities. Bakke had better scores then them, so he filed a suit under EPA and civil rights act. MO by Powell for Bakke: any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated EPA. The use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria, but not as a single rigid one.
What is Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College?
(2023 & Roberts court) SFFA sued Harvard saying its use of race in admissions violates the Civil rights act and EPA, by discriminating against Asian American and white applicants in favor of “underrepresented” minority applicants. Harvard says it adheres to system outlined in Grutter. MO by Roberts for SFFA: Strict scrutiny is used for race, Grutter establishes a non-stereotyping and termination (it has to end at some point). Harvard fails those criteria. It could not demonstrate its compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease, so its violates EPA. Universities can still consider an
applicant’s discussion of how race affected their life so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.
What is Baker v. Carr?
(1962 & Warren court) Baker alleged that a law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker’s suit detailed how TN reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. Does SC have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? MO by Brennan for Baker:legislative apportionment (district boundaries) was a justiciable issue under the EPA. This meant that federal courts could review and potentially intervene in cases where state legislatures had failed to reapportion districts in proportion to population.
What is Reynolds v. Sims?
(1964 & Warren court) Sims & others challenged the AL state legislature apportionment, the lack of proportionality prevented them from effectively participating in a republican form of gov and it violated the EPA. MO by Warren for Sims: EPA requires that state legislative districts should be comprised of roughly equal populations if possible. State legislatures had to be apportioned on a population basis. States were required to “honest and good faith” efforts to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practicable.
What is South Carolina v. Katzenbach?
(1966 & Warren court) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a “test or device” (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Under the Attorney General, federal examiners could to investigate election irregularities, did that violate states rights to implement and control elections? MO by Warren: the Court upheld the Act as constitutional. Noting that the enforcement clause of the 15th Amendment gave Congress “full remedial powers” to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a “legitimate response” to the “insidious and pervasive evil” which had denied blacks the right to vote since the 15th Amendment’s adoption in 1870.
What is Shelby County v. Holder?
(2013 & Roberts court) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization. Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts. MO by Roberts for AL: the act imposes burdens that aren’t responsive to current conditions. The restrictions made sense when they were made but they don’t anymore so there an unconst. infringement on states powers.
What is Rucho v. Common Cause?
(2019 & Roberts court) A three-judge district court struck down NA’s 2016 congressional map, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the map and that the map was the product of partisan gerrymandering. MO by Roberts: Partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. Partisan gerrymandering existed beforethe independence of the U.S., and this power was not given to the courts then. Courts can resolve “a variety of questions surrounding districting,” including racial gerrymandering, it is beyond their power to decide the central question: when has political gerrymandering gone too far.
What is Katz v. U.S.?
(1967 & Warren court) Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz, he was convicted based on those recordings. Does the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone? MO by Stewart for Katz: Katz was entitled to 4th Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. Established that “The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places” and the reasonable expectation of privacy test
What is Florida v. Jardines?
(2013 & Roberts court) Jardines was suspected of growing pot, a dog signaled it smelled drugs while at his door, the police then got a warrant and Jardines was arrested. Did the dog sniff without a warrant violate the 4th amend? MO by Scalia for Jardines: The front porch of a home is part of the home itself for 4th amend purposes. Entering a person’s porch for the purposes of conducting a search requires a broader license than the one commonly given to the general public, Without such a license, the police officers were conducting an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amendment
What is Carpenter v. U.S.?
(2018 & Roberts court) Carpenter was convicted of robbery based in part on cell phone location records obtained by the FBI without a warrant. The gov got several months of his cell-site location info from his wireless carrier under the Stored Communications Act. MO by Roberts for Carpenter: 4th amend protects not only property interests, but also reasonable expectations of privacy. Tracking a person’s movements and location through extensive cell-site records is intrusive. People do not voluntarily share this data in a meaningful way with cell providers. So this violated the 4th amend and a warrant is needed.
