Slavery and Civil War Amendments

Question 1

Dred Scott v. Sanford- FACTS

Answer 1

Scott was owned by emerson who lived in a slave state (Missouri) and then went back to Illinois which was not a slave state. Scott argued that the missouri compromise prohibited slavery in illinois and thus when he and his family were taken there, they became free.

Question 2

Dred Scott- Holding

Answer 2

Court does NOT have jurisdiction bc scott is not a citizen to bring forth a claim. even if scott had jurisdiction, he still would not have been a free man, court rejected that the missouri compromise set him and his family free bc setting slaves free deprives the owners of their property rights.

Question 3

Dred Scott- RATIONALE

Answer 3

Court looked at the intent of the framers and that they did not include slaves when they said that all men are created equal.

Question 4

Dred Scott- DISSENT

Answer 4

Argued that scott was a citizen and that all people born or naturalized gain the privilege of national citizenship.

Question 5

13th Amendment

Answer 5

Section 1- neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime wherof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the US, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

section 2- congress shall have the power to enfore this article by appropriate legislation.

Question 6

Bailey v. Alabama- FACTS

Answer 6

Employer gets sued bc he does not fulfill his end of a work contract. Mississippi statute criminally punished employer. The main issue here was the statute in which the conviction was based on had the effect of involuntary servitude by compleling personal service in liquidiation of debt.

Question 7

Bailey v. Alabama- Rule and Rationale

Answer 7

the mississsipi statute is unconstitutional as it is basically trying to enforce involuntary servitude which was a big no-no. the 13th amendment was created to abolish slavery, it was also created to prohibit other instances of involuntary servitude.

NO PEONAGE!

Question 8

Peonage definition

Answer 8

forced work to pay off a debt.

Question 9

Bailey v. Alabam- Dissent by Holmes

Answer 9

13th amendment does not prohibit contracts for labor. argued that peonage was not at issue here since peonage has to di with forcing labor with a private master, ad this was not the case here since this was a workplace and he chose to work.

Question 10

13th amendment and racial housing laws

Jones v. Alfred (1968)- facts

Answer 10

African american man is turned away from buying a house based on his race. P argued that it was a violation of 42 USC (established that all persons shall have the same right to inherit, ourchase, lease, sell, hold, and covey real property).

Question 11

Jones v. Alfred (1968) - Issues associated

Answer 11

1. is 42 USC a valid exercise of the 13th?
2. dos 42 usc prohibit all racial discrimination public and private?

Question 12

Jones v. Alfred (1968) - Issues answered

Answer 12

1. Yes, 42 USC is a valid exercise of the 13th? congress obviously has the power here- the majoirty states that it has NEVER been doubted that it is congress’ power to enforce the article by appropriate legislation.
2. YES, 42 USC does prohibit all kinds of racial disc, private AND public. the plain meaning of the 42 usc shows that it was meant to apply to private action, if the 13tha mendment did not include the power to protect people of color, then it would have been meaningless amendment. the 13th was a big amendment- these were the kinds of things it was protecting people from.

Question 13

Jones v. Alfred (1968) DISSENT by Harlan and White

Answer 13

history of the statute shows that it was only ever intended for sttae actors, nit private actors., they argue that you are reaching into private peoples’ lives by telling them that they can’t discriminate.

Question 14

14th amendment- The power of congress to protect women’s right using its

U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - FACTS

Answer 14

Congress passed the VAWA to give private right of action against private individuals to women who sffer from violence, women brings a sexual assault case against a man at virginia tech. p and us govt brought suit under vawa in fed court.

Question 15

U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - RULE

Answer 15

Congress may regulate the discriminatory conduct of state officials, not of private officials.

Question 16

U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - Rationale

Answer 16

1. 14th amendment only applies to state action
2. think about remedy- rehnquist speaks of a civilzed system of justice” thsi means that if the plaintiff’s allegations are true, then the justice system will rmedy her, but not through the means tha she seeks. under the system of justice, she must be remedied through the state and NOT through the fed govt.

Question 17

U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - BIG RULE

Answer 17

Section 5 cannot be used to remedy what the states are supposed to remedy.

Question 18

15th amendment

what’s the basic idea w/ the 15th amendment?

Answer 18

voting!!!!

Question 19

Voting RIghts Act- VRA

What was the VRA?

Answer 19

Remember that 15th amendment gives congress the right to pass this, and they did. section 2 says that a violation is established if the political process is not equally open to partiicpation by a class of citizens protected by subection a. Basically members are not to have more power than other members to vote.

Question 20

Sections of the VRA

Answer 20

Section 2- permanent nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting.
Section 4- coverage formula- this provided that the formula used to determine which jurisdiction needed to get fed clearance efore changing voting laws.
Section 5- requires stated to obtain fed clearance before changes.

Question 21

VRA

Shelby County- FACTS

Answer 21

Section 5 of the VRA requires certain states to gain preclearance on any law related to voting. section 4 applied to the states who met certain conditions (had literacy tests and were imposing stuff like this to basically make it harder to vote).

Question 22

Shelby- rationale

Answer 22

COVERAGE FORMULA HAS GOT TO GO!!
Preclearance is ok, but tyhe coverage formula is outdated and has got to go.

Question 23

Shelby- Majority

Answer 23

CJR, Thomas, Alito

Even though thomas thinks that preclearance has got to go too.

Question 24

Shelby dissent

Answer 24

sotomayor and kagan- preclearance has not done its job yet. congress has enacted the vra and we have to give them deference.

RBG- who needs an umbreall if you’re not getting wet/

Question 25

BRNOVICH- Facts

Answer 25

in 2016, az made it a crime for mail in ballots to be collected by anyone other than postal workers, boters caregivbrs, and fam members. another az law stated that all in person voters who vote on election day in precinct system must vote at their assigned precinct or their vote would not count.

the argument here was that the voting laws violate section 2 of the vra bc the law adversely and disparately affected AZ’s american indian. hispanis. and african american citizens.

Question 26

brnovich- rule

Answer 26

a states voting laws DO NOT violate section 2 of the VRA if the state’s electoral process is equally open to munority voters and minority voters are provided with an equal opportunity to particpate in the political process.

Question 27

BRNOVICH - Majority and rationale

Answer 27

Alito, CJR, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kav, and ACB.

To violate sectoon 2 of the VRA, it must be proven by a totality of the circumstances that the electoral process is not equally open to participation bymembvers of a protected class.

alito also specifically calls out the disset and states that they are rewritring the totality test and instead are trying to turn it into the disparate impact test (ie they are just focusing on race).

Question 28

BRNOVICH - Totality Test Factors when determing whether something is “equally open”

Answer 28

1. size of the burden on voting
2. the degree to which a voting rule deparys from what was considered standard practice when section 2 was amended.
3. size of disparaties in a rule’s impact on members of different groups
4. opportunities provided by a state’s entire system of voting.
5. strenth of the state;s interest.

Question 29

BRNOVICH - application of totality test

Answer 29

court looked at factors 1 and 3.
1- the precinct polc did not violate bc it put the same burden on all people, same with the mail in ballot rule.

3- precinct: the court reasoned that any concerns bout racial disparity were small and unlikely to cause arizona’s laws to become unequally open. mail in- there was no concrete evidence that the mail in ballots showed disparate impact.

Question 30

BRNOVICH- dissent

Answer 30

sotomayor, kagan, breyer

they are against the totality in a way- theyw ould prefer that we just look at the disparate impact instead of the “made upfactors” where the court does not look at the facts on their face.

they beloeve that the inquiry should be on the effects of the voting law.
the test they would use- must be narrowly tailored to meet state interests.

Question 31

more voting

Moore v Harper

Answer 31

NC drew its congressional districts in 2021 after gaining a new seat. voters challenged the maps as parisan gerrymandering, arguing that they violated the state const. the NC supreme reed, ordering the maos be redrawn, the state legislature representatives appealed, arguing that the elections claise prevented the state court from reviewing their redistricting actions.

Question 32

Moore v. Harper- rule

Answer 32

the elections clause does not exempt state legilsatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.

Question 33

Moore- majority + rationale

Answer 33

CJR, Sotomayor, kagan, jackosn, kavanaugh, ACB.

courts, both state and fed are responsible for ensuring laws comply with constitutional standards. state courts can review legislative actions related to elections, as tstae legislatures derive their power from state constitutions.

• rucho held that gerrymandering as nonjusticiable in fed courts does not apply here, as this case involves state court action
• nc supreme avted within ita uthority in ruling that the legislatures redistricting map violated the states const.
• there is no significant argument that the court overstepped.

Question 34

Moore- Kavanaugh Concurrence

Answer 34

supports the majority but emphasizes that fed courts should apply a diferential standatd when reviewing state court decisions on state law. federal review should only occur if the state court’s interpretation distorts state law beyond a fair reading.

Question 35

Moore- Dissent

Answer 35

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
* the elections clause grants exclusive authority to state legislatures to set the “time places and manner” of elections for fed officer, not state courts.
* state courts cannot apply state law to override legislative authority derived bt US const.
* thomsas wants of conflict bt state courts interpreting state const and the authority of state legislatures, he calls for a highly differential fed court review of stte court decisions in such cases. remember he is big on states rights.
* case should have een dismissed as moot since NC had already redrawn the maps.
*

Question 36

Allen v. Milligan (2024) - facts

Answer 36

following 2020 census, Alabama created a redistricting plan that included only one majority- Black district, despite an increase in the Black population. Plaintiffs argued that Alabama packed Black voters into a single district and divided other clusters, minimizing their influence in violation of section 2 of the VRA.

Question 37

Allen- Majority + Rationale

Answer 37

CJR, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Kavanaugh
The court uses the gingles framework: the court applied the three-part test established ingingles to evaluate section 2 claims.

Question 38

Allen- GINGLES FRAMEWORK- 3 PART TEST

Answer 38

1. the minority group must be large and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably configured district.
2. The minority group must be politically cohesive
3. Under the totality of the circumstances, the political process must not be equally open to minority voters.

Question 39

Allen- Gingles applied

Answer 39

the court agreed with the district court that black voters in alabama met all three conditions.

• the plaintiffs demonstarted the existence of alternative maps that satisfied traditional redistricting criterial while providing a second majority black district, the states white majoirty cosistently defeated black voters’ preferred candidates, this meeting the 3rd prong of gingles.
• they rejected race neutral arguments- alabama argued fora race neutral benchmark based on computer models., the majority dismissed this, noting hat mapmakers are not blind to race and the const prohibits racisl disc, not race conscious onsiderations aimed at remedying such disc.

Question 40

Allen- dissent

Answer 40

Thomas, Gorsuch, ACB (in part)
* Opposition to Section 2 Interpretations- Section 2 of the VRA does not require states to create districts that allow minority voters to control seats proportional to their population. He raised concerns that race-conscious districting violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by giving priority to race over traditional redistricting principles.
* We need a narrower interpretation of section 2. It should only address barriers to voting (such as poll taxes or literacy tests. NOT to mandate racial balancing in electoral districts
* Race-neutral districting based on traditional principles like compactness and contiguity.
* Thomas suggests some sweeping changes to Section 2, ACB may not be fully on board.

Question 41

Allen- dissent 2

Answer 41

alito joined by gorsuch
* Alito disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Gingles, particularly the definition of “reasonably configured.” He argued that Alabama’s redistricting adhered to traditional principles and did not intentionally discriminate against Black voters.
* He voiced concerns that the ruling would lead to more litigation and an overemphasis on race in future redistricting efforts.

Question 42

Who would vote to overturn gingles?

Answer 42

Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, maybe ACB.

Question 43

Alexander v. South Carolina (2024)- Facts

Answer 43

South Carolina’s republican- controlled legislature adopted a new congressional map that moved LOTS of black voters to a different district, effectively making the district a safe seat for Republicans. Argument- Legislators appealed to Supreme Court arguing that the map was a political gerrymander that had a racial effect- thus a 14th amendment equal protection claim was made since they argued that the ma diluted the voice of black voters.

Question 44

alexander- rule

Answer 44

Justiciability- Claims that a map is unconstitutional bc it was drawn to achieve a partisan end are NOT justiciable in fed court (Rucho). However, if a legislature gives race a predominant role in redistricting decisions, the map is subject to strict scrutiny and may be held unconst.
** NOTE- - Whether a legislature is giving race a predominant role in redistricting will be up to plaintiff to prove in order for it to be subject to strict scrutiny. (more below)

Question 45

Alexander- Majority + Rationale

Answer 45

Alito, CJR, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kav, ACB
* Redistricting was not racially motivated but driven by partisan decisions.
* Emphasized the assumption that the legislature acted in good faith during redistricting.
* Expert testimony criticism- unreliable because it ignored traditional redistricting criteria such as compactness and contiguity, treated the analysis like an “island” instead of considering the whole map, and misused the net vote instead of the total votes.
* Section C- Weight of Expert Witness (what Thomas disagrees with in concurrence)
o Alito faulted the expert for not looking at full picture, Thomas disagreed arguing that courts should not weigh expert testimony in this manner/extent.

Question 46

Alexander- more rationale (distinguishment bt voter dilution and political gerrymandering)

Answer 46

o To prove vote dilution, p must show that the state enacted a voting scheme to minimize minority votes. Court held that P’s in this case failed to do so.

court then came up with a lost of what p must do to prove vote dillution (next slide)

Question 47

What must p do to prove vote dilution?

Answer 47

1. Determine whether the legislature acted in good faith
2. Then provide an alternative map that shows how the legislature could have drawn the districts differently while acting in good faith.

Question 48

Allen- dissent

Answer 48

Kagan, jackson, sotomayor

• She does not agree that the plaintiffs needed to show an alternative map- this was a burden and the focus was whether the existing map violated the VRA.
• Emphasized- what kind of message are we sending to legislators and mapmakers: those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends.