Equal Protection - Classes based on Race and Origin

Question 1

What are the Civil War Amendments?

Answer 1

13th, 14th, 15th Amendments

Question 2

What standard are laws based on classifications of race and origin?

Answer 2

Strict Scrutiny

Question 3

Korematsu v. United States:

Japanese Americans were sent to camps after the bombing of Pearl Habor. Was this constitutional?

Answer 3

Yes. Although this is an outlier and probably would go the other direction now.
Court held that when dealing with national security, Congress and the President have a lot of leeway.

Question 4

Loving v. Virginia: Can marriage be restricted by race?

Answer 4

Restricting the ability of someone to marry based solely on their race violates the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.
There is no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.

Question 5

Palmore v. Sidoti

Can child custody be decided based on the race of the parents or the parents significant other?

Answer 5

The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not allow the determining of child custody solely based on race.

Question 6

Brown v. Board of Education holding and outcome:

Answer 6

Removes Separate but equal. This policy harms minorities and children especially because they feel inferior to the white children. For this reason, separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal.

Question 7

McClesy v. Kemp

Does a party have to prove a discriminatory purpose in general terms or in their own case?

Answer 7

A party must prove a discriminatory purpose in his own case, not in general terms.
A statistical analysis proving discrimination in general is not enough to build a case on because it doesn’t mean that discrimination occurred in their specific case.

Question 8

City of Mobile v. Bolden

When the law is facially neutral toward race, what must be proven?

Answer 8

The plaintiff must prove a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect of the law.

Question 9

What is a discriminatory Purpose?

What is a discriminatory effect?

Answer 9

Discriminatory purpose: implies the decision makers had an intention to select this law because it created a discriminatory affect rather than in spite of its discriminatory effects.
Discriminatory Effect: When the outcome of a law is discrimination.

Question 10

Does the court require a discriminatory effect or a discriminatory purpose?

Answer 10

The court determines there must be both a discriminatory effect and a discriminatory purpose.

Question 11

Define: Discriminatory Purpose

Answer 11

Implies more than an intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequence. it implies that the decision makers selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part “because of” not merely “in spite of” its adverse effects upon an identified group.

Question 12

Hunter v. Underwood

Burden of proof required to prove racial motivation.

Answer 12

Once a racial discrimination is shown to have been a substantial or motivating factor in the law, the burden shifts to the defenders of the law to prove that the law would’ve been enacted without the racial motivation.

Question 13

Batson v. Kentucky

Three steps to prove racial motivation behind the use of a peremptory challenge

Answer 13

1) Criminal defendant must set forth a prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecutor;
2) Once the defendant has presented a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to offer a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge.
3) The trial court must decide whether the race-neutral explanation is persuasive or whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.

Question 14

In Brown v. Board of Education, the court stated a simple phrase that caused significant problems with getting rid of segregation. What was it?

Answer 14

The Court stated that segregation should be phased out “with all deliberate speed.”

Question 15

Griffin v. County School Board.

Could the school board close schools, rather than segregate them?

Answer 15

The Court said that closing schools was fine, as long as there was a valid, Constitutional purpose behind it. However, if they were closing the schools to avoid segregating them, this was not alright.

Question 16

Swann v. Charlotte Board;
What did the court say about the following four questions?
1) What extent may racial quotas be used to correct a segregated system?
2) Are “one race” schools allowed?
3) Are altered attendance zones acceptable?
4) How should the transportation of students be completed?

Answer 16

1) Racial quotas may be used. But they must be flexible. Mathematical ratios should be no more than a starting point in the process.
2) One race schools are not necessarily discrimination. However, the burden is on the school to prove they are not one race for a discriminatory purpose.
3) Altered attendance zones are alright, but the school must prove they are not based on rigid rules.
4) The local courts will have wide discretion to determine the best way to achieve the transportation of students. There are no rigid rules, the local courts should use their best judgement.

Question 17

Swann v. Charlotte Board

When should judicial authority be invoked in regards to racial desegregation?

Answer 17

Judicial authority should be invoked once it has been shown that the school has failed in their affirmative requirements.
The courts were given broad authority to fix the issues in the ways they see fit.

Question 18

What did Milliken v. Bradley state about the courts scope of authority in desegregation across school district lines?

Answer 18

The court should conduct a three prong examination to determine how wide their scope of authority is:
1) A Constitutional violation within one district;
2) Leads to a constitutional violation within another district;
3) Then, the court can take broad strokes actions to fix the problems.
However, if the three prongs are not all fulfilled, the court must place narrow restrictions.

Question 19

What scrutiny applies when a classification is designed to benefit minorities?

Answer 19

Strict scrutiny applies to all classifications of race. Even if they are for the benefit of minorities.

Question 20

Can a quota system be used for minority students in college and university admissions?

Answer 20

No. A quota system is not narrowly tailored. An admissions program must be flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according to the same weight.

Question 21

Why was the admissions system used in Grutter v. Bollinger (law school admissions) upheld while the system in Gratz v. Bollinger (undergrad admissions) struck down?

Answer 21

The system in Grutter was flexible and race was a “soft variable.” Whereas, in Gratz, the system was rigid and not indivdualized to each person.

Question 22

Can administrative inconvenience be used as a justification for an inflexible admissions program in considering race?

Answer 22

No. The Court held in Gratz v. Bollinger that administrative inconvenience is not a sufficient justification to use a race based admissions plan.

Question 23

What Scrutiny will be applied when race is used when drawing election districts?

Answer 23

Strict Scrutiny

Question 24

What should particular attention be paid attention to when examining election districts to determine if race was possibly a consideration in the election district drawing?

Answer 24

1) If the drawn district is a bizarre shape.

2) If race was a predominant factor in the redrawing of the districts.

Question 25

Easley v. Cromartie
What must be proven by the party that is attacking an election district for the use of race in the drawing of the district.

Answer 25

The party attacking the legislative drawn boundaries must show at the least that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles. The party must also show that those distracting alternatives would have brought about significantly greater racial balance.