Final Part A

Question 1

Shaw v. Reno: Details

Answer 1

As a result of the 1990 Census, NC
became entitled to a 12th seat in the U.S.
House. The NC General Assembly developed a
redistricting plan that included one black-
majority district. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno rejected it as racially discriminatory.

Question 2

Shaw v. Reno: Question

Answer 2

Did the North Carolina residents’ claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?

Question 3

Shaw v. Reno: Decision

Answer 3

(5-4) “Racial gerrymandering, even
for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race
no longer matters.”

Question 4

Bush v. Gore: Details

Answer 4

When results of a recount in Florida favored Bush in the 2000 election, Gore requested a manual recount of 9000 contested votes in Miami-Dade County, as well as a statewide recount of undervotes.

Question 5

Bush v. Gore: Question

Answer 5

Did the statewide recount violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Question 6

Bush v. Gore: Decision

Answer 6

(7-2) The Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment.” The recount was also unpractical because different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. There was also not enough time to complete a constitutionally sound recount.

Question 7

Gratz v. Bollinger: Details

Answer 7

The University of Michigan’s awarded 20 points toward the 100 necessary to guarantee admission to “underrepresented minorities.” Two white students, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, applied for admission and were rejected.

Question 8

Gratz v. Bollinger: Question

Answer 8

Did the university’s policy violated the equal
protection clause insofar as race was a “predominant” factor in admissions decisions?

Question 9

Gratz v. Bollinger: Decision

Answer 9

(6-3) The admissions policy was not narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of a diverse student body; the policy only considered one type of diversity (racial); and the policy established race as “decisive” in admissions decisions.

Question 10

Rust v. Sullivan: Details

Answer 10

The Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations limiting the ability of Title X fund recipients to engage in abortion-related activities. Several Title X grantees and doctors who supervised Title X funds filed two separate actions against the Secretary, claiming that the regulations were not authorized by Title X and that the regulations violated their First and Fifth Amendment Rights.

Question 11

Rust v. Sullivan: Question

Answer 11

Did the regulations violate the First and Fifth Amendment rights of clients and health providers?

Question 12

Rust v. Sullivan: Decision

Answer 12

(5-4) The statute does not encroach on a doctor’s ability to provide or a woman’s right to receive information concerning abortion-related services outside the Title X project.

Question 13

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston: Details

Answer 13

The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans’ Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Veterans’ Council claimed that forced inclusion of GLIB members in their privately-organized parade violated their right to a private organization.

Question 14

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston: Question

Answer 14

Did a Massachusetts State Court’s mandate to Boston’s Veterans’ Council violate the Council’s private organization rights?

Question 15

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston: Decision

Answer 15

(Unanimous) The State Court’s ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement.

Question 16

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale: Details

Answer 16

The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale’s adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist.

Question 17

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale: Question

Answer 17

Does the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?

Question 18

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale: Decision

Answer 18

(5-4) “applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association,” as they did not wish to promote homosexuality.