Equal Protection Flashcards
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Facts
Plessy is ⅛ black
State action discriminating, the railroad company wants the law overruled too
Justice Brown (majority)
Whiteness is property but Plessy isnt being deprived of said property
14th amendment cant be expected to fix racial tensions
Separation is a police power for wellbeing
These rules are arbitrary, they are good faith trying to keep ppl where they want to be (like ladies cars)
Black ppl are assuming this is a sign of inferiority
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
Harlan (dissent)
We must have color blind laws
Races arent equal socially bc the white race is obvious in power, wealth, education etc so it IS actually imposing inferiority
Segregating isn’t useful to a legitimate legislative end
This legislation causes the racial tensions that Justice Brown talks about
Missouri Ex Rel Gaines v Canada
Facts
- Missouri tells Gaines to go to law school in a diff state, even tho he is a qualified candidate
Hughes, Majority
- There is a distinct advantage to going to Missouri law school if you want to be a Missouri lawyer
- You cant use another state as a crutch, each state is separately responsible to give equal protection
- Missouri is creating a privilege to white ppl which they are denying to black ppl because of their race, obviously an equal protection problem
McLaurin v Oklahoma State Regents
Facts
OK has after litigation allowed McLaurin to attend but only in separate seats, separate eating facilities etc
Vinson Majority (9-0)
The separations set McLaurin apart in a way that impedes his learning
Sweatt v Painter (9-0)
Facts
UT Law has made a new school for black ppl, but facilities are worse plus no prestige
Vinson (majority)
There is no “substantial equality in the educational opportunities offered”
UT has tangible and intangible advantages
Cites Gaines, saying the violated right is a personal one to equal opportunity
Brown, (9-0)
Brown 1 (Warren) says segregation is unconstitutional
The history of the 14th amendment is not determinative
Cits Sweatt and sais the schools fail separate but equal
Separating bc of race generates a feeling of inferiority, which is worse when it has the sanction of law
Brown 2 (warren)
Equity decides how lower courts decide
This is complicated, courts should proceed “with all deliberate speed”
Green v New Kent (9-0)
Facts
Freedom of choice plan, letting students integrate if they want. Two separate bus systems on the same routes
Brennan
It has been 10 years, the school boards must “bend their efforts” to do more
Freedom of choice works as part of a plan but is not the end in and of itself
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed (9-0)
Opinion (burger)
Racial quotas are not the answer but they are a starting point
One race schools are ok if they reflect the makeup of the community but should be under high scrutiny
No limits on rearranging districts via bussing, esp bc its an interim measure
Remedy might be inconvenient but we cant fix that
*gives previously local power to district court judges
Milliken v Bradley (5-4 first non-unanimous
Facts
Detroit interdistrict segregation
Burger (opinion)
This is diff from Swann bc its interdistrict
Consolidating these districts would remove local decision making and create clunky problems
No smoking gun for interdistrict segregation
Stweart (concurrence)
The mere fact of different compositions does not imply a violation of equal protection, no smoking gun
Douglass, dissent
This is reinstating separate but equal by giving school districts a formula to segregate their schools, via poorer and wealthier districts
Marshall, dissent
De jure segregation may not be in schooling but it is in housing, so this is discrimination
We need to eliminate segregation root and branch
This court is going in the wrong direction to eliminate segregation
OK Board of Ed v Dowell
Facts
Finger plan which moves everyone together, but burdens black students more, question is can it go away
Rehnquist (opinion)
Tests should go away after some time
All vestiges of segregation have been removed (new school board)
District has made a good faith effort
Marshall, dissent
These reimplemented one race schools are a relevant vestige of de jure segregation
Brown problems are coming back, we need to hold firm with courts running this
Mo v Jenkins
Facts
Magnet schools
Rhenquist, opinion
The court cant do interdistrict things under these circumstances, cites milkin
The court cant require salary increases
Remedies should fix de jure segregation but do as little else as possible
O’connor concurring
Emphasizes how narrow the ruling is
Thomas, concurring
Dont assume de facto segregation causes harm (don’t assume black schools are inferior)
The state is not the cause so the state shouldn’t be punished
Judicial restraint, we need to put the genie back in the bottle
Souter, dissent
Just bc the remedy isnt just fixing the things in the problem district does not mean its invalid
UC Davis v Bakke
Facts
UC davis had a special separate admissions program for minorities that reserved 16 seats for them
Powell majority (he was decider)
This system should be struck down, but race can be a “plus”
This system directly hurts applicants who did nothing wrong
Brennan, White, Marshall and Blackmun
Discrimination against white ppl is less suspect
We should be looking at this under the history of underrepresentation, and this is an ameliorative program to help that not segregation
Grutter v Bollinger
Facts
Gratz undergrad struck down bc they assigned points
Grutter law school used holistic evaluation
O’Connor opinion
Diversity is in the colleges interest (they are training grounds) and they prioritize not just racial diversity
Its good they use a critical mass framework not a quota
This should be time limited
Scalia dissent
I dont like this time limited changing, why is the constitution changing its meaning
Thomas
Twists maybe 25 years ending into WILL end in 25
College is choosing “aesthetic” over a competitive admissions system
Rhenquist
I want a time limit
I dont trust this critical mass idea, it seems like they are working backwards from quotas
Percentages year after year dont shift
Parents v Seattle
Robberts (opinion)
These policies should be held to strict scrutiny bc this is racial classifications
Compelling interest
Race is the only factor, there is no real record of past discrimination or an interest in diversity
Narrowly tailored
No bc each district has widely different quotas and numbers
Cites brown saying this is diff schooling based on race
Thomas concurrence
This is not reintegration this is futzing, we must be color blind
Kennedy concurring in part concurring in judgment
I like their goal but their methods are unconstitutional
Breyer dissent
We want racially integrated education, this is how we would get it
This is not discrimination like the case in brown, this is trying to embody its promises
Craig v Boren
Opinion: Brennan
Court accepted intermediate/heightened scrutiny for sex discrimination (case on drinking age)
US v Virginia
Facts
Vmi uses adversative training model
Had established separate institution for women which was less prestigious
Ginsburg
There arent comparable womens institutions
goals and methodology aren’t in inherently gender specific
This fails the exceedingly persuasive justification heightened scrutiny justification
Scalia
The constitution takes no sides, lets not have the courts intervene and let democracy shift
Men only is important to the character of the institution
We should give deference to their understandings
