All Cases and Concepts Flashcards
What case does substantive due process originate from? How was it used?
Dred Scott. It was used to argue that it is too extreme to suddenly lose property when you travel from state to state even with due process.
What is substantive due process?
Essentially, it is used against government actions when there is no process available to administer it as the action is too objectionable. For example:
FH: Dred Scott
Dred Scott, enslaved to Emerson. Emerson took Scott with him to Wisconsin, then back to Missouri. Scott sued and claimed he had become free upon entering a free state. The Supreme Court held that Congress couldn’t constitutionally cause people to lose ownership of their property by moving from state to state (Crazy argument). Establishes substantive due process.
FH: Slaughter House Case (Add name)
Butchers were polluting. Louisiana closed down their shops. Butchers argue that the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause protected their pollution (From my understanding). Supreme Court limits privileges and immunities clause to rights unique to citizenship, which, there are very little of-Essentially nerfing the clause.
Why do libertarians want the privileges and immunities clause reinstated? Why is the Supreme Court reluctant to give them it?
UPDATE THIS, but from my understanding right now it’s because it would prevent government regulation.
FH: Strauder v. West Virginia
Strauder, a black male, was convicted of murdering his wife by all-white jury; West Virginia law barred black people from jury service. At the time, there was a lack of clarity as to how the 14th amendment prohibited racial discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the amendment prohibits discrimination based on color, thus, the law was prohibited.
FH: Plessy v. Ferguson
Louisiana passed a law that permitted railways to provide equal but separate accommodations based on race. Plessy, who claimed to be 7/8’s white, was asked to move & wouldn’t. The issue at hand was whether or not the statute of Louisiana was a reasonable regulation to achieve its desired purpose. The Supreme Court held that to determine reasonableness, the court is at liberty to act with reference to established customs and traditions. Schools at the time were segregated and the court felt there was valid reasoning behind that, so this is fine. ‘Separate is not unequal’, court argued that that belief was self-imposed.
FH: Smith v. Allwright
State parties established ‘white primaries’. The court held that this violated the 15th amendment as political parties’ powers are delegated by the state.
FH: Terry v. Adams
Extended Smith v. Allwright to private conspiracies to exclude black nominees.
FH: Sweatt v. Painter
Sweatt was denied admission to Texas Law because he was black. Texas constitution permitted separated white and black schools so UT made a separate black law school. Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s ruling in favor of UT, arguing that the opportunities between the two law schools were inherently unequal. This was a case used to eventually bring about Brown v. Board of Education.
FH: Brown v. Board of Education
Black minors alleged that the segregation of public schools deprived them of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court argued that it could not look to the original intention behind the 14th Amendment as it had been too varying during its passage, there was also a lack of a public school system in the south. The court noted that now, education is a very important state/local responsibility, one that is linked to success. The question then, it held, was if racial segregation in public schools, although ‘tangibly equal’, deprived children equal educational opportunities. The court held that yes, it does. Intangibles matter, as the law/graduate school cases demonstrated. Additionally, the separation imposes an inferiority on black kids.
What was controversial about the Brown v. Board of Education holding?
The court cited a social science study to demonstrate the inferiority status felt by black kids in segregated schools.
Was school desegregation an immediate process?
No. The court permitted it to take awhile, but eventually schools ran out of time.
What parts of the 14th amendment uphold Brown v. BoE?
Substantive due process and equal protection clause.
FH: Cooper v. Aaron
Arkansas heavily resisting federal orders to desegregate schools. Supreme Court held that they were bound to comply, citing Article 4 of the Constitution and Marbury v. Madison.
FH: Griffin v. Prince Edward County
Prince Edward County, in response to Brown, closed down public schools but provided grants to a whites-only private school program (From my understanding). Supreme Court held that while closing public schools isn’t unconstitutional, doing so to prevent desegregation is, violating the 14th amendment.
FH: Green v. New Kent County School Board
The county provided students with the option of going to either school. However, the schools remained segregated. Supreme court ruled that freedom of choice is not enough and that more affirmative action is needed. The south responded with geographic standards, which has become the norm.
FH: PICP v. Seattle
Seattle county/school district had a race-based school assignment policy to ensure integration. Supreme Court held that ‘to stop racial discrimination is to stop racial discrimination’.
FH: Korematsu v. United States
The evacuation order was in place for Japanese Americans on the West Coast to assembly centers. No right of appeal. Korematsu did not leave Oakland so he was arrested and convicted of violating executive order. The Supreme Court invented strict scrutiny standard and held that this case passed that standard, citing security concerns. Albeit, it was later learned that these security concerns were disputed. Conviction overturned in 1984, government issued an apology and reparations.
What is the dominant framework for evaluating laws based on race?
Strict scruitny
FH: Palmore v. Sidati
White couple gets married then divorced. Palmore gets custody of the daughter and then marries a black man. Sidati wants custody because of the interracial social stigma his daughter will face. The trial court agreed, Supreme Court reverses. The court held that although these private prejudices exist, they are not enough to take away custody. Also, the court did not want to give effect to these racist prejudices.
Strict Scrutiny
Such a law must be shown necessary to achieve a compelling state interest
Strict Scrutiny Criteria
How compelling is the goal? How necessary is focusing on ____ (i.e. race) in achieving that goal? Narrowly-tailored to achieve that goal?
FH: Regents of UC. v. Bakke
Facts are basically affirmative action lol. The Supreme Court held that race could be taken into account in admissions decisions at public universities, but must be narrowly tailored so that it doesn’t deter any admissions (Essentially, you can’t have someone getting in solely because of their race). The goal of affirmative action had to be to promote diversity, not to remedy past discrimination.
FH: Affirmative action overturn but i don’t have the case written down
Supreme Court held that the use of race in admissions is unconstitutional. For private schools, they used the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The majority opinion cited the lack of available judicial review of the program’s goals. Additionally, they argued that race may never be used as a ‘negative’ and that it may not operate as a stereotype, citing lower admissions for Asian-American students. ‘Outright racial balancing is patently unconstitutional.’ Sotomayor’s dissent argues that the original intent of the 14th amendment favors this, as the Freedman’s Bureau had existed at this time.
