Flashcards in Equal Protection - Classes based on Race and Origin Deck (25)
What are the Civil War Amendments?
13th, 14th, 15th Amendments
What standard are laws based on classifications of race and origin?
Korematsu v. United States:
Japanese Americans were sent to camps after the bombing of Pearl Habor. Was this constitutional?
Yes. Although this is an outlier and probably would go the other direction now.
Court held that when dealing with national security, Congress and the President have a lot of leeway.
Loving v. Virginia: Can marriage be restricted by race?
Restricting the ability of someone to marry based solely on their race violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
There is no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.
Palmore v. Sidoti
Can child custody be decided based on the race of the parents or the parents significant other?
The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not allow the determining of child custody solely based on race.
Brown v. Board of Education holding and outcome:
Removes Separate but equal. This policy harms minorities and children especially because they feel inferior to the white children. For this reason, separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal.
McClesy v. Kemp
Does a party have to prove a discriminatory purpose in general terms or in their own case?
A party must prove a discriminatory purpose in his own case, not in general terms.
A statistical analysis proving discrimination in general is not enough to build a case on because it doesn't mean that discrimination occurred in their specific case.
City of Mobile v. Bolden
When the law is facially neutral toward race, what must be proven?
The plaintiff must prove a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect of the law.
What is a discriminatory Purpose?
What is a discriminatory effect?
Discriminatory purpose: implies the decision makers had an intention to select this law because it created a discriminatory affect rather than in spite of its discriminatory effects.
Discriminatory Effect: When the outcome of a law is discrimination.
Does the court require a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory purpose?
The court determines there must be both a discriminatory effect and a discriminatory purpose.
Define: Discriminatory Purpose
Implies more than an intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequence. it implies that the decision makers selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part "because of" not merely "in spite of" its adverse effects upon an identified group.
Hunter v. Underwood
Burden of proof required to prove racial motivation.
Once a racial discrimination is shown to have been a substantial or motivating factor in the law, the burden shifts to the defenders of the law to prove that the law would've been enacted without the racial motivation.
Batson v. Kentucky
Three steps to prove racial motivation behind the use of a peremptory challenge
1) Criminal defendant must set forth a prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecutor;
2) Once the defendant has presented a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to offer a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge.
3) The trial court must decide whether the race-neutral explanation is persuasive or whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.
In Brown v. Board of Education, the court stated a simple phrase that caused significant problems with getting rid of segregation. What was it?
The Court stated that segregation should be phased out "with all deliberate speed."
Griffin v. County School Board.
Could the school board close schools, rather than segregate them?
The Court said that closing schools was fine, as long as there was a valid, Constitutional purpose behind it. However, if they were closing the schools to avoid segregating them, this was not alright.
Swann v. Charlotte Board;
What did the court say about the following four questions?
1) What extent may racial quotas be used to correct a segregated system?
2) Are "one race" schools allowed?
3) Are altered attendance zones acceptable?
4) How should the transportation of students be completed?
1) Racial quotas may be used. But they must be flexible. Mathematical ratios should be no more than a starting point in the process.
2) One race schools are not necessarily discrimination. However, the burden is on the school to prove they are not one race for a discriminatory purpose.
3) Altered attendance zones are alright, but the school must prove they are not based on rigid rules.
4) The local courts will have wide discretion to determine the best way to achieve the transportation of students. There are no rigid rules, the local courts should use their best judgement.
Swann v. Charlotte Board
When should judicial authority be invoked in regards to racial desegregation?
Judicial authority should be invoked once it has been shown that the school has failed in their affirmative requirements.
The courts were given broad authority to fix the issues in the ways they see fit.
What did Milliken v. Bradley state about the courts scope of authority in desegregation across school district lines?
The court should conduct a three prong examination to determine how wide their scope of authority is:
1) A Constitutional violation within one district;
2) Leads to a constitutional violation within another district;
3) Then, the court can take broad strokes actions to fix the problems.
However, if the three prongs are not all fulfilled, the court must place narrow restrictions.
What scrutiny applies when a classification is designed to benefit minorities?
Strict scrutiny applies to all classifications of race. Even if they are for the benefit of minorities.
Can a quota system be used for minority students in college and university admissions?
No. A quota system is not narrowly tailored. An admissions program must be flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according to the same weight.
Why was the admissions system used in Grutter v. Bollinger (law school admissions) upheld while the system in Gratz v. Bollinger (undergrad admissions) struck down?
The system in Grutter was flexible and race was a "soft variable." Whereas, in Gratz, the system was rigid and not indivdualized to each person.
Can administrative inconvenience be used as a justification for an inflexible admissions program in considering race?
No. The Court held in Gratz v. Bollinger that administrative inconvenience is not a sufficient justification to use a race based admissions plan.
What Scrutiny will be applied when race is used when drawing election districts?
What should particular attention be paid attention to when examining election districts to determine if race was possibly a consideration in the election district drawing?
1) If the drawn district is a bizarre shape.
2) If race was a predominant factor in the redrawing of the districts.