Chapter 5 - Supreme Court Cases Flashcards
Dred Scott v. Sanford
Dred Scott was a slaved who escaped from Missouri to Illinois (a free state). After returning to Missouri, he filed a suit for his freedom claiming that his residence in a free territory made him a free man. He lost and filed another suit. His master claimed that no black person or a descent of a slave could be a free citizen.
The decision was a 7-2 for Sanford. Majority held that weather a black, who’s ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, free or not, could not be an American citizen, therefore did not have the right to sue in the federal court.
Held proportions of a the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not a person.
Plessy v. Ferguson
When Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which made separate railway cars for blacks and whites, Homer Plessy (who was 7/8 caucasian but was black under Louisiana’s law) agreed to participate in a test against the Act and was solicited by a Committee of Citizens. However, the railroads cooperated because it costs for more cars and when Plessy was told to vacate, he refused and was arrested. He claimed that it violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment.
This case ruled in a 7-1 decision rule for Ferguson and held that the State law was unconstitutional and that the Fourteenth Amendment established absolute equality for all races.
Brown v. Board of Education
Relating tot he segregation of public schools on the basis of race. On many occasions some African Americans were denied acceptance to public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. This case would overturn Plessy v. Ferguson.
The decision was an unanimous decision for Brown. Separate but equal educational facilities for minorities are violating the equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hernandez v. Texas
Is it a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause to try a defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or ancestry have, because of that race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state?
This case ruled an unanimous decision for Hernandez because the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond those two classes of white or black and extends to other racial groups and minorities that exists within a community.
Korematsu v. United States
In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. , Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu’s conviction.
The decision was 6-3 for United States. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
Adarand submitted the lowest bid for a subcontractor funded by the United States deparemnt of Transportation. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction was awarded the work because they were certified as a minority business and Adarand was not. Affirmative action: Policy designed to give special treatment to compensatory of members of some previously disadvantaged group.
This case ruled 5-4 decision for Adarand because the court imposed all racial classifications must pass strict scrutiny review. The Court added that compensation programs which are truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards.
