Civil Rights & Liberties Exam 2 Flashcards
Brown= I
Justice Warren 9-0
Facts: African American plaintiffs challenged laws which required or permitted racially segregated public schools, seeking admission on a non-segregated basis.
Issue: Whether racial segregation of public schools, even where facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprives the plaintiffs of equal education opportunities under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Holding: Laws which segregate public schools on the basis of race are unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Rationale: (1) The opportunity provided by public education is a right which the state must make available to all on equal terms. (2) Segregation of children on the basis of race has detrimental effects on motivation and ability to learn, depriving the child of the right to an equal education.
Brown II
Integration process remedies
Facts: Brown I - Segregation is unconstitutional. Schools are trying to desegregate but are not doing it fast enough.
Issues: How do schools desegregate faster and who is responsible for making sure it gets done?
Holding: The school boards are responsible for making sure desegregation is done quickly. Burden is on the defendant (schools). The federal district court will oversee the schools. Schools must desegregate “with all deliberate speed.”
Rationale: School authorities have the primary responsibility of desegregating their schools. The courts will then determine whether the action of the school authorities constitutes good faith implementation. The courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start towards full compliance with Brown I. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. The burden rests on the school authorities to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date.
Cooper
Facts: African Americans sued schools that would not admit their children. Governor of Arkansas wanted the state of Arkansas to make it legal to segregate children in school based on their race. He believed that Brown was only binding on states until the state legislates otherwise. Case of Brown I should not be binding on the state.
Issue: Is “all deliberate speed” unconstitutional? Whether a state is bound by all Supreme Court Case decisions.
Rationale: Every state is bound by the US Constitution and by US Supreme Court cases. State derives its power from the US Constitution.The 14th Amendment will not allow States to discriminate against children based on their race.
Swann
Remedy list
Facts: School districts undergoing desegregation under Brown I and Brown II, sought clarification of their duties and the scope of federal district courts’ power under Brown I/II. Many school sought to maintain vestiges of their pre-Brown I segregated system. Defendant school districts brought suit, alleging that District Courts had overreached their authority, broad as it may be under Brown II.
Issue: What is the scope of District Court authority under Brown II? When is it appropriate for the court to invoke that authority?
Holding: Held
Rationale: The authority is broad but is appropriate only where local districts have failed to bring themselves into compliance with Brown I on their own accord. Racial quotas are allowable. Single-race schools are not per se a “mark of a system that still practices segregation by law.” The court “should scrutinize such schools,” and the burden is on the school district to demonstrate that the school’s racial makeup is not the result of past or present de jure segregation. The courts may redefine district lines to desegregate the systems, even though such redistricting may cause initial inconvenience and burdens. Busing is an appropriate remedy, as well, as long as the time involved in the busing does not risk the health of the children or significantly impinge on the educational process.
Milliken
Justice Burger (5-4) Facts: Attempts to integrate the Detroit schools had been unsuccessful. They were racially imbalanced in the eyes of the District Court. The court's remedy was to redraw district lines of neighboring suburban school districts to achieve racial balance with the city's schools. Issue: May District Courts redraw the boundaries of integrated school districts to achieve integration in a segregated district? Holding: The District Courts cannot redraw the lines of integrated school systems to achieve racial balance in segregated school system absent an inter-district violation or effect. Districts outlying Detroit are desegregated and so they should not have to bus their students into Detroit to help them with their segregation problem. Only Detroit is a perpetrator. Dissent: Justice White argues that this is a deliberate act of segregation that is going to go unremedied. Justice Douglas argues that this case is almost overturning Brown and agrees with Justice White.
What would happen if Brown I had Milliken’s holding about school districts being under local control?
There would be no segregation. Plessy was about local control and nothing would have changed about segregation. Milliken was Plessy but in modern times.
What would happen if the holding in Brown I about education being a right on equal terms was Milliken’s holding?
All districts would be responsible for desegregation.
Freeman
Facts: Instead of becoming more racially integrated, the Georgia school district became less racially integrated, due to the demographic change in the area (more blacks) rather than any intentional resistance to desegregation. They had “freedom of choice” policy that was challenged.
Issue: Whether the district court has the power to withdraw from supervision of certain facets of a desegregation plan if there are other facets that still require supervision in order to accomplish a “unitary” school system.
Holding: Yes.
Rationale: The court may change its remedies to fit the violations. Due to the strong interest a local school district has in self-determination, the court exceeds its remedial powers when it continues supervision of programs that no longer alleviate the initial constitutional violation. This withdrawal may proceed in incremental stages, especially where it is found that the contributing factor to the re-segregation is a change in demographics which is beyond the control of the school board.
Rodriguez (level of scrutiny)
Facts: Rodriguez brought suit challenging the Texas system of public school finance. The system relied on local district property values and state contributions which led to large per-pupil spending disparities between wealthy and poor districts.
Issue: Whether the Texas system of public finance was constitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Sub-issue: the appropriate level of scrutiny, to be determined by analyzing whether the Texas system relied on a suspect classification or violated a fundamental right. Level of Scrutiny
Strict Scrutiny: Model 2. Scrutiny is what you get if (1) the state had made a “suspect class” OR (2) a fundamental right is in danger of being an issue. State burden is “compelling.”
Rational Basis: Model 1. State burden is “reasonable” if neither 1 or 2 above.
Holding: The Texas system is constitutional; there is no federal equal protection requirement that states equalize–or reduce the inequalities–school district finance.
Rationale: No suspect classification is involved because none of the measures of wealth/poverty correlate with district residence. No fundamental right is violated, because education is not a fundamental right. Therefore rational basis is the appropriate level of scrutiny, and the Texas system of school finance is not without basis in reason.
Dissent: Justice White. Even if viewed through the rat basis test, the Texas system does not rationally relate to the permissible state purpose of maximizing local initiative and control.
Parents Involved
Facts: Seattle School District adopted a race-based policy to maintain integrated schools in the face of increasingly isolated public schools. Race may be considered a factor in admissions in order to achieve diverse student bodies. The Roberts court reconsidered those rulings and the use of race in student assignments in public schools.
Issue: Seattle School District No. 1 presented a challenge to a policy of giving, under certain circumstances, racial preferences in school assignments.
Holding: The appellate court’s decision was revered by a 5-4 vote. No use of race in providing educational opportunities because it violates the 14th Amendment.
Dissent: How else can a school remedy the issue of diversity or racial mix if they are not allowed to have plans to ensure an equal balance?
Goesart
Nominal Test (says): rational basis (weak, model 1) Actual Test (using): Rational basis Attack on a Michigan law which provided that no women could obtain a bartender's license unless she was "the wife or daughter of the male owner" of a licensed liquor establishment. Justice Frankfurter stated that Michigan could, beyond question, forbid all women from working behind a bar. Used rational basis to rule that the law be upheld.
Reed
Chief Justice Burger struck down Idaho’s statute giving males preference in interstate proceedings for lacking rational basis. Strong rational basis (model 2).
Frontiero
Facts: A female Air Force Lieutenant sought increased benefits on the basis of her husband as a dependent, which were refused by the armed services’ policy of only allowing men to claim wives presumptively as dependents.
Rule of Law: Gender-based classifications, like racial classifications, must pass strict scrutiny. Rational basis. Brennan.
Craig
Heightened Scrutiny
Facts: Oklahoma state maintained different drinking ages b/t men and women for the consumption of 3.2% alcohol beer. The appellant, Craig, now alleges that this difference violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Rule of Law: Gender based classifications must satisfy intermediate scrutiny requirements to pass constitutional muster. The gender-based classification must serve an important government objective an be substantially related to the achievement of such objective.
Dissent: Rehnquist
US v. Virginia
Majority Opinion: VMI cannot use gender based classifications unless they have “exceedingly persuasive justification” for doing so.
Facts: VMI was the only all male school in Virginia. They used an “adversative method.” VWIL was created as a substitute for VMI but did not employ the “adversative method.” The school did not meet the same standards as VMI because it offered fewer courses.
Issues: Did VMI violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Rationale: VMI did not show “exceedingly persuasive justification” for excluding women from their school. Assumptions about women are no excuse to exclude them.
Dissents: Rehnquist thinks that the separation is okay as long as the two schools are equal. Scalia would allow the segregation because of the long tradition and custom of the segregation.
