Individual Rights - Equal Protection

Question 1

Facts: The Civil Rights Act of 1875 affirmed the equality of all persons in the enjoyment of transportation facilities, in hotels and inns, and in theaters and places of public amusement. Though privately owned, these businesses were like public utilities, exercising public functions for the benefit of the public and, thus, subject to public regulation. In five separate cases, a black person was denied the same accommodations as a white person in violation of the 1875 Act.

Answer 1

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

**Rule: Amendment 14th Sec 1. **

**Holding: **The Majority notes that this limitation on Congressional power in dealing with just state action does not apply when Congress is given direct and pleanary powers of Legislation such as the Commerce Clause. However, when a subject is not submitted to the general legislative power of Congress, then Congress’ power is limited by its object, and any legislation by Congress in the matter must necessarily be corrective in its character, adapted to counteract and redress the operation of such prohibited State laws or proceedings of State officers.

Court holds that such an act of refusal has nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude, and that if it violates any right of the party, then his redress is to be sought under the laws of the State; or if those laws are adverse to his rights and do not protect him, then his remedy will be found in the corrective legislation which Congress has adopted to counteract state laws prohibited under the 14th Amendment. COURT FINDS THAT IT WOULD BE RUNNING THE SLAVERY ARGUMENT INTO THE GROUND TO MAKE IT APPLY TO EVERY ACT OF DISCRIMINATION.
Court notes that public inn keepers are already bound by the laws of their states to furnish proper accommodations to ALL PERSONS WHO APPLY IN GOOD FAITH. If the laws themselves make just discrimination, then the Fed. Government can amend the law in accords with the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment.
Court points out that when a man emerges from slavery, that he will have to eventually elevate himself to the rank of a mere citizen and cease to be the special favorite of the law. Therefore, his rights as a citizen are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men’s rights are protected

Question 2

Facts:
o Provision of will left by Senator Bacon conveyed a park to Macon, Georgia to be used by whites only.
o When city opened park, they argued they could not enforce segregation in a public park. Board of Managers (D) sued to remove city as trustee to effectuate Senator’s will.
o After city resigned as trustee, group of negroes (P) sued.
o Provision was challenged by Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment.

Answer 2

Evans v. Newton (1966)

Holding/Importance:
o Court held operating a park is a public function and therefore is subject to 14th amendment. Black people cannot be excluded.
o Parks cannot be made private, they serve municipal service for entire community within public domain.

Question 3

• Facts:
o Shelley, black who bought home in neighborhood in which 30/39 owners had signed restrictive covenant against blacks buying homes, was sued by neighborhood to undo the sale.
o Circuit court declined to enforce their covenant on basis that not all the property owners had signed it. Missouri SC upheld covenant.

Answer 3

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme court held that Missouri’s SC ruling of upholding the covenant deprived Shelley of rights guaranteed by 14th amendment and acts of congress.
o 14th amendment apply only where there is state action, found here as Missouri SC enforced the agreement, depriving Petitioners of their property.
o Expands the prohibition of this type of restrictive covenant to both public and private discrimination.

Question 4

• Facts:
o Burton brought action under Equal Protection Clause of 14th, claiming he was discriminated against because Wilmington Parking Authority and Eagle Coffee Shoppe (D) refused to serve him due to race.
o D leased restaurant space from the City, and restaurant was attached to W. parking Auth., a city owned parking garage.

Answer 4

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1297)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme Court held there is significant state involvement to permit an action under 14h amendment when a state leases public property to a private actor who then discriminates.
o State action is a prerequisite to assertion of rights under 1st, 8th, and 14th amendment. State action is found when private actor has acted when (1) state has delegated a traditional state function to a private entity, or (2) because the state has become entangled with, approved, encouraged, or facilitated a private entity/conduct.

Question 5

• Facts:
o Irvis brought suit against Moose Lodge (private club with liquor license) alleging discrimination under 14th amendment.
o Trial court issued injunction to remove liquor license until they stopped discriminating.

Answer 5

Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme Court reversed, held the granting of a liquor license to a private club that discriminates does not significantly involve the state as to constitute state action.

Question 6

• Facts:
o Railway argued that NY statute prohibiting advertising on vehicles, except for notices upon business delivery vehicles engaged in regular work of the owner, are unconstitutional for violating Equal Protection Clause of 14th, as it draws lines that are not justified by the aim and purpose of the regulation (to lessen distractions caused by advertising).

Answer 6

Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)

• Holding/Importance:
o The Equal Protection Clause does not seek to protect so called discrimination in determining which vehicles can advertise.
o Equal Protection Clause is invoked where a law treats similarly situated people differently. However, SC didn’t think this case applied. If it did, Rational Basis Scrutiny would apply, and the statute must not be rationally related to any legitimate interest. Any police power regulation furthering health, safety or welfare are legitimate.

Question 7

• Facts:
o Jackson brought civil rights action against D, private company subject to extensive state regulation, seeking damages and injunctive relief for terminating her electrical service for alleged nonpayment.
o Jackson said she had not been given notice, hearing, and an opportunity to pay amount due. Claimed she was entitled to reasonably continuous service, and that the termination constituted state action without procedural due process.

Answer 7

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme court held the termination was not sufficient to constitute state action.
o D is just a heavily regulated private utility, with a partial monopoly, and it elected to terminate service to P in a manner which the PPUC (Penn. Public Utilities Commission) found permissible under state law.
o This case shows that the “public function doctrine” is not to be read broadly.
o Dissent argued that state’s involvement with the utility company was sufficient enough to satisfy state action.

Question 8

• Facts:
o Virginia enacted laws making it a felony to mix-race marry between blacks and whites. Claimed statutes served “racial integrity,” and argued because it punished both white and black participants equally, it is not discrimination.
o Constitutionality of the statutes was raised.

Answer 8

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme Court held restricting the freedom to marry solely on the basis of race violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
o Miscegenation statute was improper as it made the legal consequences turn on the races of participants.
o Statutes not exempt form Strict Scrutiny Review. Had clear race distinctions.

Question 9

• Facts:
o West Virginia statute limited jury service to white men. Strauder, a black man, was convicted of murder by a trial court in WV, and appeals his conviction.

Answer 9

Strauder v. West Virginia (1830)

• Holding/Importance:
o Statute violates the 14th amendment, as it gave to blacks the right to be free from unfriendly legislation directed at them on the basis of their race.
o This statute concerning juries was quintessential legislation 14th was designed to prohibit. It impedes blacks the ability to secure equal justice the law aims to secure for all others.

Question 10

• Facts:
o Palmore and Sidoti were divorced in 1980 in Florida, and Palmore got custody of daughter. Sidoti filed petition to modify prior judgment because of changed conditions, because Palmore now married/lived with a black person.
o App. Court found Palmore had chosen life for daughter that was unacceptable to Sidoti and to society, and custody should be given to father due to environmental pressures on child not by her choice if she had mix-parents raising her.

Answer 10

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme Court held reversed, and though acknowledge the potential social stigmatization of having mixed-race family, such considerations are not permissible under 4th amendment

Question 11

• Facts:
o During WWII, military commander (by direction of Pres. Roosevelt’s executive order authorizing commanders to prescribe military areas from which any and all persons may be excluded) ordered all persons of Japanese descent to evacuate the West Coast. Korematsu (P) was convicted for failing to comply.

Answer 11

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme court held it was within the power of Congress and the Executive to exclude persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast at that time.
o SC held that it imposed hardships on citizens, but that was a part of war.
o This case (ironically) established the “Strict Scrutiny” standard of review, leading to invalidation of much race-based discrimination in the future.

Question 12

• Facts:
o Yick Wo was imprisoned for operating a laundry in a wooden building in violation of a San Francisco statute. The statute gave discretion in granting or withholding licenses to operate laundries in wooden buildings. Yick Wo had been there 22 years and building had been deemed safe.
o Board denied licenses to all chinese-american applicants, but only denied one of 80 non-Chinese applicants.
o Yick Wo was fined, and imprisoned for failing to pay. Sued California SC for a writ of habeas corpus (requiring arrestee to be brought before judge to secure release unless lawful grounds are shown for detention), though court found board had acted within scope of its authority.

Answer 12

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

• Holding/Importance:
o Supreme Court stated a city cannot enforce an ordinance in a racially discriminatory manner, and such an ordinance granting a person/entity absolute discretion to grant or deny permission to carry on a lawful business to be in violation of the 14th amendment.
o If statute was discriminatory on its face, court would apply strict scrutiny.
o This wasn’t discriminatory on it’s face, so court looked to rational basis; though intended to reduce fire, only Chinese laundries were affected by the statute, thus invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Question 13

• Facts:
o Higher percentage of black applicants than white applicants failed a qualifying test administered by District of Columbia Police Dept. Some of the black app. Claimed these effects constituted unconstitutional discrimination against them under Equal Protection.
o Test measured vocab, verbal ability, and reading comp.

Answer 13

Washington v. Davis (1976)

• Holding/Importance:
o SC held that proof of a disproportionate impact is not enough, standing alone, to ground a finding that a law amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.
o Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it alone does not trigger the rule that racial classifications are subject to the strict scrutiny standard of review. Police forces effort to recruit blacks is evident they did not intentionally discriminate on basis of race. Exam only meant to ensure officers had particular level of verbal skills.
o Now, courts confronted with a law that has a disproportionate effect on a racial minority must first determine if the law is race specific (either on face, or motivated by racial discrimination purpose), before allowing strict scrutiny.

Question 14

• Facts:
o Feeney challenges Administrator’s rule that provides a hiring preference to military veterans for civil service positions as discriminating against women.

Answer 14

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979)

• Holding/Importance:
o SC held that gender neutral statute that adversely impacts one gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if it does not have a discriminatory purpose and does not actually classify one gender.
o Statute was designed to reward and help veterans reenter society.

Question 15

• Facts:
o MHDC applied to Village of Arlington Heights for rezoning of a 15 acre parcel from single-family residential to multi-family residential, intending to build federaly subsidized low to moderate income housing. Request was denied.
o MHDC sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming denial was discriminatory in nature and thus violated 14th amendment and Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Answer 15

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

• Holding/Importance:
o Court found that it was not unconstitutional or statutorily discriminatory as they failed to meet burden of proving discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the VAH’s decision.
o Cited Washington v. Davis, not unconstitutional solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact.
o Court found VAH’s intentions were only to keep it as single-family housing zone.
o In cases without some evidence of racially discriminatory intent, the mere fact that the decision of a governmental agency affects race will not be enough to show violation of 14th amendment’s due process clause.

Question 16

• Facts:
o Kentucky used peremptory challenges to strike all black jurors from the trial of a black man, Batson.
o During trail of Batson, charged with burglary and receiving stolen goods, Judge conducted voir dire and excused certain jurors. Then prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to remove the rest of the black jurors, so Batson would be tried by an all white jury.
o Defense objected before jury was sworn in, and judge overruled on grounds that peremptory challenges could be against “anybody they want.” Batson was convicted on both.

Answer 16

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

• Holding/Importance:
o Peremptory challenges are subject to the Equal Protection Clause of 14th amendment.
o SC opined that when the prosecutor appeared to use challenges in violation of equal protection, the state bears the burden of proving a reason for the challenges.
o While peremptory challenges are afforded to balance the jury process, when a defendant proves that there is a possibility they are being used in violation of equal protection, the state must prove that they were for any other “valid reason.”

Question 17

• Facts:
o Louisiana statute required railroad companies to provide separate, but equal accommodations for its black and white passengers. Plessy was prosecuted under the statute after refusing to leave the section reserved for whites.
o Plessy was seven-eighths white.
o Alleged purpose of statute was to preserve public peace and good order, and to promote the comfort of the people.

Answer 17

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Holding/Importance:
o A law, which authorizes or requires the separation of two races on public conveyances, is consistent with the 14th amendment unless the law is unreasonable.
o The statute was consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, as although the clause was designed to enforce equality between races, it was not intended to abolish distinctions based on color or to enforce a commingling of the races.
o 14th amendment does, however, require that the exercise of a State’s police powers be reasonable – laws enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good, not for the annoyance or oppression of another race.
o This case marks beginning of the “Separate But Equal” doctrine, later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.

Question 18

• Facts:
o Black children were denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws that permitted or required segregation by race. The children sued, seeking admission to public schools in their communities on a nonsegregated basis.

Answer 18

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Holding/Importance:
o Separate But Equal educational facilities are inherently unequal.
o SC stated that even if the “tangible” factors of segregated schools are equal, to segregate black children from others of similar age and qualification solely based on race generates a feeling of inferiority regarding their status in the community, and may affect their hearts/minds in a way never to be undone.
o The “intangible” factors make segregation inherently unequal.

Question 19

• Facts:
o School districts undergoing desegregation under Brown v. Board of Education, sought clarification of their duties and the scope of federal district courts’ power under Brown (I/II).
o They claimed District Courts had overreached their authority under Brown II.

Answer 19

Swann v. Charlotte – Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

• Holding/Importance:
o The scope of District Court authority is broad, but enters only when local school districts have not voluntarily brought themselves into compliance with Brown I/II.
o SC made it clear that the federal courts have almost carte blanche (complete freedom) in desegregating previously segregated school systems. However, their authority only exists when the local school boards “default” in their efforts to desegregate.
o Mathematical racial quotas are an allowable exercise of judicial authority when used as a starting point after a “total default” of the school board’s duty.
o Courts may redefine district lines to desegregate the systems, even though it causes initial inconvenience and burdens.
o Invoking busing is an appropriate remedy as well.

Question 20

• Facts:
o Keyes proved that for nearly 10 years since 1960, Denver school system implemented an unconstitutional policy of racial discrimination by operating a segregated school system.
o Defense argued that even though one part of the Denver system was guilty of segregation, it did not follow that the entire system was segregated as well.

Answer 20

Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1 (1972)

• Holding/Importance:
o Court held that when part of a school system is found to be segregated, a “prima facie case of unlawful systematic segregative design” becomes apparent.
o The school district assumes the burden of proving that it operated without “segregative intent” on a system-wide basis.
o This case is significant as it represents one of the first instances in which the court identified segregation in northern schools.

Question 21

• Facts:
o Attempts to integrate the Detroit schools had been unsuccessful.
o Detroit schools were racially imbalanced in the eyes of the District Court. Court’s remedy was to redraw lines of neighboring suburban school districts to achieve racial balance within the city’s schools.
o The proposed redistricting would cause significant administrative and financial problems for the resulting school system.

Answer 21

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

• Holding/Importance:
o District Courts cannot redraw the lines of integrated school systems to achieve racial balance in a segregated school system unless there is an interdistrict violation or effect.
o The discriminatory acts of a single district must be a substantial cause of interdistrict segregation. (If district lines had been drawn on basis of race, or if discriminatory acts of one district caused segregation in another, then an interdistrict remedy may be in order. Not the case here).
o This is the first case since Brown v. Board of Education which limited the power of federal courts to remedy segregation in public schools. Until this, courts had been given broad powers in equity to enforce the holdings of Brown, including redistricting, establishing racial quotas, and busing.