Flashcards in Midterm Deck (49):
The court read the fourteenth amendment to take as their primary target the rights of the former slaves and new freedmen, not of all the people, and thus read the scope and application of the fourteenth amendments quite narrowly. The fourteenth amendment would not apply to, say, a group of butchers.
Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873
People cannot be excluded from the jury selection process solely due to their race or color. The fourteenth amendment should be read in the context with which it was passed. The passage of this highlighted a systematic difference between blacks and whites.
Strauder v. West Virginia
Congress does not have the power to enact the civil rights act of 1875 because it is a federal action. The fourteenth amendment only applies to state action. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. There are therefore clear limits to the power of Congress under the 14th amendment.
As for the 13th amendment, it is about abolishing slavery and nothing more.
The Civil Rights Cases of 1883
The fourteenth amendment was meant to enforce absolute equality among the races but was not meant to abolish distinction based on color. Also the government cannot do much nor should it be expected to do much.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Motels could not discriminate based on race through refusing to accept guests of color. The Court held that the commerce clause restricted hotels from doing this due to the blockage of the free flow of goods across interstate borders.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
Enunciated the principle that separate but equal in primary and secondary public schooling is unconstitutional.
Brown v. Board of Education I
Ruled that desegregation of public schooling must occur with all deliberate speed. Known as the remedy phase of the two part ruling. Announced the remedy that must follow from the principle that separate but equal is unconstitutional.
Brown v. Board of Education II
Eliminated segregation in DC under the 5th Amendment due process clause.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Constitutionality of a Congressional statute banning the interstate shipment of “filled milk” --milk reconstituted with vegetable oil --- because it was deemed injurious to public health. Fourth footnote of the decision laid out the limits of the presumption of a law’s constitutionality and acknowledged the circumstances when that presumption would not hold (discrete and insular minorities).
Judges aren’t imposing subjective or substantive notions of fairness; they are identifying a procedural bias and acting to correct it.
US v. Carolene Products
While the Court must subject race classifications to the most rigid scrutiny, Japanese detention camps, given WWII, meet this test. The first case that says racial discrimination is judged by a strict standard of scrutiny, even though the outcome is not what we might expect in terms of strict scrutiny typically leading to the downfall of the state action.
Korematsu v. US
Ollie’s BBQ. Restaurants cannot refuse to serve blacks under the commerce clause because by having less customers there was less trade of interstate good.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Reimagined the marriage contract as not a civil contract and went against trend to suggest that federal Reconstruction policies did not rearrange relations between the state and federal authority or limit state regulatory power from its antebellum level. Challenged a ban on interracial marriage. The court claimed that the fourteenth amendment didn’t overturn states rights to regulate contracts (argued that marriage is more than the civil contract, it was a contract with God and cannot fall under federal regulation).
Gibson v. Indiana
Invalidates a statute that punished interracial cohabitation more severely than cohabitation of persons of the same race. Based on a classification of race of the participants, which bears a heavy burden of justification and will be upheld only if it is necessary and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.
McLaughlin v. Florida
Statutes prohibiting interracial marriage violate due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. Miscegenation jurisprudence deprives liberty without due process of law. Modern origin of the “strict scrutiny” doctrine for racial classifications.
Loving v. Virginia
The constitution cannot control racial prejudices, but it also cannot tolerate them. Don't allow racial prejudices to go forward.
Palmore v. Sidotti
City ordinance about laundries in certain buildings requiring a permit, when in practice permits were denied to all Chinese. Court ruled that it was clear that the administration of the law was discriminatory and that there was therefore no need to even consider whether the ordinance itself was lawful. Blatant discrimination of the equal protection clause.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Before the CRA blacks were only allowed to work in the labor department, however after this, Act this had to change. The company instituted an IQ test and high school graduation requirement that the employee had to pass in order to work in a department higher than the labor department. The Court of Appeals ruled the test fine, but the Court said it was unconstitutional because it violated the CRA of 1964, and set the precedent that businesses had to show relations between the test and job performance to have it not be discriminatory. Disparate Impact.
Griggs v. Duke Power
Disparate impact does not constitute racial discrimination, and thus there is no invocation of strict scrutiny. Disparate impact is not enough to prove a constitutional violation, but it is enough to prove a statutory violation.
Washington v. Davis
A Massachusetts law gave hiring preference to honorably discharged veterans. A woman who scored higher on the civil service test was ranked lower than several veterans and she claimed this violated the EP clause. The Court ruled that the law did not violate the EP clause because it served a “legitimate and worthy purpose.” The disadvantage was not between men and women, but veterans and non-veterans.
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
University of California had a special program for minorities with lower admissions standards. The quota system was struck down because it is not narrowly tailored and it violates strict scrutiny. But they are allowed to consider race as a part of a larger understanding of the comprehensive student value.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
An agreement that reduced the changes of minority teacher to be laid off. This was problematic because the Unions negotiated so that seniority would come into play during layoffs. A Union member who was laid off because she was not a minority sued as a violation of the EQ clause. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because teachers being role models was not a compelling government issue. Collective bargaining agreement for race-based layoffs violated the Equal Protection clause; the layoff provision was not narrowly tailored enough to meet the narrowly tailored requirement.
Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed.
A city's use of racial quotas on black construction contractors is unconstitutional and cannot survive strict scrutiny as it is not narrowly tailored and there is no history of city discriminating against construction industry. This shifted the meaning of strict scrutiny from suspect class to suspect classification.
City of Richmond v. JA Crosson Co.
Approved the use of minority set-asides by the Federal Communications Commission in order to encourage minority ownership. A win for anti-subordination. The FCC created a policy for affirmative action to encourage minority ownership of TV and radio programs. It was concluded that the EP clause was not violated because they were aimed at remedying past government discrimination.
Metro Broadcasting v. FCC
Established that both state and federal laws regarding racial classifications must be reviewed under strict scrutiny, thereby overturning Metro. Overturned Metro Broadcasting. Strict scrutiny must always be applied in cases of race. Anti-subordination disappears after this. Adarand sued because he was not given a bid, instead went to a minority-owned business. The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional and that all racial classification must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
Affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law School was held as constitutional because it was intended to increase student diversity and was individually and narrowly tailored, taking most of its reasoning from Bakke.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Companion case to Grutter. Ruled that the point system was unconstitutional because it awarded many points on the basis of race rather than simply considering it.
Gratz v. Bollinger
DISPARATE IMPACT Twenty white city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.
The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters instead of the black firefighters. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' argument that New Haven violated the constitutional right to equal protection.
Ricci v. DeStefano
Challenged the University's top ten admissions guarantee that considered race was constitutional. The admissions process was ruled constitutional in line with previous affirmative action cases.
Fisher v. University of Texas
New Kent County schools had a ‘freedom of choice plan’ that was implemented after Brown to desegregate the schools. It let students choose if they wanted to transfer to what was before the white or black school. Only a few black students transferred and no white students transferred. The policy was brought to court as a violation of the EP clause. The court ruled that the “freedom of choice” plan was not a sufficient step to bring about a desegregated unitary school system. While the freedom of choice plan may work in some situations, school districts must provide a plan that works to dismantle the segregated system in their district.
Green v. New Kent County School Board
Virginia’s plan to close all public school instead of desegregating them and provide vouchers for private schools is unconstitutional and violates 14th amendment EPC. (Court frustrated; too much deliberation, not enough speed)
Griffin v. County School Board of PEI
In North Carolina, little to no progress had been made post Brown. This case asked if federal courts were constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation. The court held unanimously that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of the district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
-class action suit against Detroit to get more desegregation because the core of the city was majority black while whites fled to the outskirts(white flight) creating huge inequalities within the schools.
-court strikes down city’s plan to deseg., decides that busing within a district is okay but busing between districts is not okay. (Courts can only impose a remedy with proof and there is no intention of violation and there was no de-jure segregation within the school districts).
Created distinction between de-jure and de-facto which allowed schools to have de-facto segregation as long as it wasn’t explicitly in policy. The Court says that desegregation does not require racial balance.
Milliken v. Bradley
Disparities in school funding does not violate Equal Protection clause.
-Education is not a fundamental right in the constitution so therefore this case is not subject to strict scrutiny, but subject to rational basis
-School can continue their financing plan as long as it’s “rationally related to a legitimate state interest”
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
The District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the plurality opinion that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that "[t]he present cases are not governed by Grutter." Unlike the cases pertaining to higher education, the District's plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity ("white" and "non-white"). The District's goal of preventing racial imbalance did not meet the Court's standards for a constitutionally legitimate use of race: "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity.'" The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is necessary for race-conscious programs. The Court held that the District's tiebreaker plan was actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. The District also failed to show that its objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means. In a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy agreed that the District's use of race was unconstitutional but stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational opportunity.
PICS v. Seattle
To combat segregation, Kansas City enhanced the quality of the schools to draw in more white students from the suburbs. Local property tax went up to support this. The court held that the local court's imposition of a specific tax was unconstitutional, but that the local government could do this.
Missouri v. Jenkins
What are test cases/strategic litigation?
Purposefully brought to challenge an existing law.
Plessy: Comité des citoyens persuaded Homer Plessy, an octoroon, to ride the whites-only car.
Loving: The ACLU reached out to Mildred Loving after she wrote to the Attorney General
What are Amicus Briefs?
Briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by actors external to the parties who have interest in the outcome.
What is a rational basis test?
A law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate govt. interest. The goal does not need to be the actual purpose of the legislation but, rather, any conceivable legitimate purpose is sufficient. Challenger of a law has the burden of proof.
What is intermediate scrutiny?
A law will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important government interest. Used in evaluating laws involving gender discrimination, discrimination against non-marital children, discrimination against undocumented alien children with regard to education, speech. METRO BROADCASTING, DISSENT IN CITY OF RICHMOND V. CROSSON.
What is strict scrutiny?
The law under review is constitutional only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling govt. purpose. The government has the burden of proof. Used in national origin, discrimination against aliens, fundamental rights. ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS V. PEÑA.
What are civil rights?
Right to sue and testify in court or engage in free labor and own property. i.e. enter into a contract for employment or property lease or ownership.
What are political rights?
Right to vote or serve on a jury
What are social rights?
Right to select one's associates or friends.
Tripartite system of racial domination?
Economic Oppression, Political Oppression, Social Oppression.
Why was the black church so important? What did it provide?
An organized mass base, a leadership of clergy largely economically independent of white society, leadership skilled in the art of managing people and resources, institutionalized financial base, common church culture, forum for discussion, struggle as collective.
What does Morris mean by refocusing black religion?
Shift from an oratory of meekness to revivalist self empowerment, the entrepreneurial action of King himself--to taken an idea and recast it. Religion refocused to emphasize social justice in the material world, provided the necessary cognitive shift and intellectual foundation for the mass civil rights movement.
How does Pascoe challenge typical 14th amendment readings?
In the early years after adoption, the 14th amendment was understood to prohibit a state from banning interracial marriage.
Equal Protections Clause
Clause in Section I of the 14th Amendment which states that “No state shall…. Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”