Individual Rights - Equal Protection

Question 1

Evans v. Newton

Answer 1

Facts: a provision of a will conveyed a park to Macon, GA to be used by whites only.Holding: Operating a park is a public function, therefore subject to the 14th Amendment.

Question 2

Shelley v. Kraemer

Answer 2

Facts: Shelley bought a home in a neighborhood with a restrictive covenant preventing homes from being bought by blacks. Neighborhood filed suit to undo the sale.Holding: 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection applies to prohibit the enforcement of the restrictive covenant since the S.C. of MO enforced it, depriving Shelley of the property. (14th Amend. applies only where there is state action, which there is)

Question 3

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

Answer 3

Facts: Burton claimed discrimination for not being served based on race, claims state action since coffee shop is leased from city and adjacent to city parking garage.Holding: Significant state involvement, permits action under 14th Amendment when state leases to private actor who discriminates.

Question 4

Moose Lodge v. Irvis

Answer 4

Facts: Irvis brought suit against Moose Lodge and state liquor board alleging discrimination because of the club’s policies against non-whites.Holding: No significant state action, not significant enough to issue a liquor license, not partners, 14th Amendment not applicable.

Question 5

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.

Answer 5

Facts: Jackson alleged ME’s turning off her electrical power constituted a state action since it held a certification public certification to deliver electricity to a specific areaHolding: ME’s private company action is not specifically authorized by the state, therefore not a state action.

Question 6

Railway Express Agency v. New York

Answer 6

Facts: REA argued statute prohibiting advertising on certain vehicles violated the Equal Protection Clause.Holding: Equal Protection Clause does not cover this statute, and even if it did, safety of public would control and allow statute to stay in effect.

Question 7

Loving v. Virginia

Answer 7

Facts: Loving alleged state’s anti-miscegenation statute violated the 14th Amendment after being sentenced for violating it.Holding: S.C. ruled statute unconstitutional and in violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

Question 8

Strauder v. West Virginia

Answer 8

Facts: Strauder was convicted of murder by an all-white jury, WV had a statute limiting jury service to white men.Holding: Strauder’s conviction violated the 14th Amendment, statute is in violation since US citizen has a right to a jury selected and impaneled without discrimination to his race.

Question 9

Palmore v. Sidoti

Answer 9

Facts: Sidoti filed to change child custody arrangement based on Palmore marrying a black man. Holding: 14th Amendment does not permit the consideration of potential effects due to racial prejudice against mixed-race families in child custody determinations.

Question 10

Korematsu v. United States

Answer 10

Facts: Korematsu was convicted for failing to comply with order for all persons of Japanese descent to evacuate the West Coast. Holding: While this type of restriction is subject to the most rigid scrutiny, pressing public necessity justified it at the time (WWII).

Question 11

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Answer 11

Facts: Wo was imprisoned for violating a statute regarding operating laundries in wooden buildings. Holding: Statute violated the 14th Amendment, while not said on its face, was designed to discriminate against Chinese.

Question 12

Washington v. Davis

Answer 12

Facts: Washington failed a police test and claimed the test was racially biased against blacks based on the majority of blacks who took it failing.Holding: A rule that is neutral on its face and rationally related to a legitimate state interest is constitutional even though it may impact a race disproportionately.

Question 13

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

Answer 13

Facts: Feeney challenged rule that provided hiring preference to military veterans, arguing it discriminated against women.Holding: A gender neutral statute that adversely impacts one gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if it does not have a discriminatory purpose and it does not actually classify one gender.

Question 14

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Answer 14

Facts: MHDC argued denying rezoning had a discriminatory effect, said it violated the Equal Protection Clause.Holding: Discriminatory effect alone does not render a governmental decision unconstitutional. There must be a motivating discriminatory purpose.

Question 15

Batson v. Kentucky

Answer 15

Facts: State used its peremptory challenges to strike all black jurors from the trial of a black man, Batson objected.Holding: Peremptory challenged are subject to the Equal Protection Clause.

Question 16

Plessy v. Ferguson

Answer 16

Facts: LA statute required trains to provide separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites.Holding: A law, which authorizes or requires the separation of two races on public conveyances, is consistent with the 14th Amend. unless the law is unreasonable. (separate but equal doctrine)

Question 17

Brown v. Board of Education

Answer 17

Facts: black children were denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws that permitted or required segregation by race. Children sued.Holding: Separate but equal educational facilities are inherently unequal.(intangible factors make it inherently unequal).

Question 18

Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education

Answer 18

Facts: to determine if a desegregation plan involving busing white students to black schools and vice versa was an effective and reasonable attempt to desegregate.Holding: The constitutional mandate to desegregate did not require all schools in a district to reflect the racial composition, but the existence of all black or all white schools must not be the result of segregation policies. Buses, as a traditional form of public education transportation, could be used to correct racial imbalances.

Question 19

Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1

Answer 19

Facts: Keyes argued that Denver had an unconstitutional policy of racial discrimination in its schools, Denver argued that even if one part was, that did not mean the whole system was segregated as well.Holding: When part of a school system is found to be segregated, a case of unlawful segregative design becomes apparent. On the school district to prove that it operated without a segregative basis.

Question 20

Milliken v. Bradley

Answer 20

Facts: After finding the Detroit school system was guilty of segregation, the plan for desegregation was ordered to encompass then entire metropolitan area.Holding: Fed. courts should not have imposed a multi-district plan, desegregation does not require any particular racial balance in districts, districts not in violation should not be forced to change because of one in violation.

Question 21

Regents of U. of Cal. v. Bakke

Answer 21

Facts: Bakke argued UC’s affirmative action admittance policy violated his right to admission.Holding: SC held that UC’s rigid racial application violated 14th Amendment, did not allow equal opportunity for all applicants.

Question 22

Fullilove v. Klutznik

Answer 22

Facts: Contractors argued congressional legislation requiring 10% of funds for public works programs be for minority owned businesses was unconstitutional.Holding: Court held minority set-aside program was constitutional, legitimate exercise of congressional power.

Question 23

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education

Answer 23

Facts: Wygant challenged non-minority lay-offs, arguing it was racially based and violated the Equal Protection Clause.Holding: SC found lay-offs stemmed from race and violated the EP Clause, argument by schools was invalid.

Question 24

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.

Answer 24

Facts: Croson challenged a plan by Richmond to require that a percentage of subcontracts for construction projects be reserved for minorities.Holding: Affirmative action programs can only be maintained by a showing that the programs aim is to eliminate effects of past discrimination.

Question 25

Metro Broadcasting v. F.C.C.

Answer 25

Facts: MB challenged the FCC’s minority preference policies in applications for broadcast licenses and “distress sales.”Holding: Court held that FCC’s policies did not violate EP because they provided appropriate remedies for discrimination victims and were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity.

Question 26

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

Answer 26

Facts: Adarand had lowest bid on subcontract but was denied. Sued Sec. of Transportation, alleging federal gov. incentives to hire minority subcontractors denied him equal protection.Holding: Race classification by the federal gov. is subject to strict scrutiny. Extends strict scrutiny to racial classifications.

Question 27

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 27

Facts: Grutter challenged U-M’s law school’s use of race as a part of its application process.Holding: Schools may consider race as a part of the admissions process as long as it is only one factor in an individualized process.

Question 28

Gratz v. Bollinger

Answer 28

Facts: Students denied admission to U-M Students challenged admission policy that gave 20 pts out of 100 to minorities.Holding: Violation of EP. Admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole contributing factor for admission.

Question 29

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Answer 29

Facts: School districts challenged by parents that desegregation plan that placed students entirely based on race was unconstitutional.Holding: School plans that use race alone as a qualifying criterion for school assignments is unconstitutional. Know Kennedy opinion.

Question 30

Bernal v. Fainter

Answer 30

Facts: Bernal’s application to be a notary public was denied solely because he was an alien.Holding: A state must show that is has a compelling state interest, that is consistent with the principles of the USC, when its law supports alien-based classifications.

Question 31

Reed v. Reed

Answer 31

Facts: Reed alleges a statute that prefers males over females in the administration of an estate to which they both have equal claims, violates the EP Clause.Holding: Classifications based on gender must be substantially related to an important government interest in order to be upheld per the EP Clause.

Question 32

Frontiero v. Richardson

Answer 32

Facts: Female AF lieutenant alleged statute offering different spousal benefits on the basis of gender violated the 5th Amend. guarantee of EP.Holding: Gender-based classifications, like racial, must pass strict scrutiny.

Question 33

Craig v. Boren

Answer 33

Facts: Craig alleged Oklahoma statute maintaining different drinking ages for men and women for beer violates 14th Amendment.Holding: Gender-based classifications must satisfy intermediate scrutiny requirements to pass constitutional muster.

Question 34

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Answer 34

Facts: Hogan denial of admission to nursing program, he alleges violation of EP since it was solely based on gender.Holding: A state may not preclude one gender or the other from participating in a unique educational environment solely on the basis of gender.

Question 35

J.E.B. v. Alabama

Answer 35

Facts: J.E.B. challenged state’s use of peremptory challenges to remove all male jurors.Holding: The EP Clause of the 14th Amend. prohibits a party to use their peremptory challenges to remove jurors based on gender.

Question 36

United States v. Virginia

Answer 36

Facts: There was no equal opportunity to VMI for women in the state, alleged VMI represented a violation of the 14th Amend.Holding: Violation of 14th. Gender-based classifications of the government can be defended only by exceedingly persuasive justifications. The State must show that its classification serves important governmental objectives and that the means employed are substantially related to those objectives. The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the differences between males and females.

Question 37

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

Answer 37

Facts: City denied a special permit to CLC for a mentally retarded home. Is this group part of the “quasi-suspect” class of EP clause?Holding: Mentally retarded should not be held to a strict scrutiny class, as they have not been discriminated against in the past. Legislation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.

Question 38

Romer v. Evans

Answer 38

Facts: Colorado voters adopted an amendment precluding the gov. from adopting measures that would protect homos from discrimination. In Violation?Holding: A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

Question 39

Shapiro v. Thompson

Answer 39

Facts: Welfare applicants denied assistance because they resided in DC for less than one year prior to filing application for assistance.Holding: Denying welfare assistance to needy families who do not meet a residency requirement, but would otherwise qualify is unconstitutional unless the denial is supported by a compelling interest.

Question 40

Zablocki v. Redhail

Answer 40

Facts: Wisconsin Statute forced individuals to receive court permission to marry if they have a minor/child not in their custody which they are obligated to pay support for.Holding: Violation of 14th. Marriage is part of right to privacy, and a fundamental right. If statute significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, it must be supported by sufficiently important state interests and closely tailored to effectuate only those interests. Such interests are subject to strict scrutiny or “critical examination.”

Question 41

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Education

Answer 41

Facts: Voters challenge the constitutionality of a poll tax before one could vote.Holding: Prerequisite payments within the election process are unconstitutional.

Question 42

Kramer v. Union Free School District

Answer 42

Facts: Kramer was refused the right to vote in school district elections, under a New York statute requiring property ownership in the district or children attending district schools to vote in such elections.Holding: Violation. Statutes limiting the right to vote must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

Question 43

Reynolds v. Sims

Answer 43

Facts: Districting scheme based on an outdated census and that had a practical effect of discriminating against voters in counties whose populations had grown far more than others.Holding: Equal protection requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature be apportioned on a population basis.

Question 44

Harris v. McRae

Answer 44

Facts: Deals with the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment which restricts the use of Medicaid funds for abortions.Holding: An unequal distribution of federal funds does not rise to the level of governmental interference in the guarantee of constitutional rights. It does not place obstacle barring women from having an abortion (Roe).

Question 45

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Answer 45

Facts: Class action on behalf of parents and students residing in poor school districts in Texas, alleging the State’s system of funding schools based on local property taxes denies equal protection to students in poor districts.Holding: Education is not a “fundamental right” for purposes of Equal Protection analysis. Rational basis test.

Question 46

Plyler v. Doe

Answer 46

Facts: Texas legislature passed a law withholding funds for the education of children of illegal aliens. This law also authorized local school districts to deny entry in the public schools of the state to these children.Holding: Violation of 14th. In order for a state to constitutionally deny a discrete group of individuals the rights it offers to others, this denial must be justified by showing a legitimate state interest.