The 14th Prohibits Racial Discrimination

Question 1

What does the equal protection clause of the 14th provide?

Answer 1

• All persons born- some people argue whether people born in the US are actually citizens, the answer is always yes because of the amendment.
• Privileges and Immunities- court has read this very narrowly.
• Due Process- this is the source of some rights (privacy, etc)
• Equal protection: ALWAYS about classifications. If you have a classification (a group) involved, then you’re here and you start asking about POC, older people, LGBTQ.

Question 2

What are the levels of scrutiny?

Answer 2

1. rational basis/ordinary
2. intermediate scrutiny
3. strict scrutiny

Question 3

Rational Basis

Answer 3

very low burden to meet, almost everything is deemed constitutional here.

the government has to have a legitimate end and the means must be reasonably related to achieving that gov end.

so legitimate + reasonably related

Question 4

Intermediate Scrutiny

Answer 4

The ends must be important and the means must be substantaailly related to achieving that important gov end.

So important + substantially related

this is used for gender classifications

Question 5

Strict Scrutiny

Answer 5

STRICT IN THEORY FATAL IN FACT

The ends must be compelling and the means must be narrowly tailored to achieving that end.

so compelling + narrowly tailored.

used for racial classifcations

Question 6

Plessy v. Ferguson - facts, rule, rationale, etc

Answer 6

facts- plessy was taking a trip on a train, the conductor told him to move because of segregation laws.
rule- louisiana law requiring racially segregated railway coaches is const.
rationale - the court talks about the 13th amendment here sna dsays that this amendment got rid of slavery and told us that everyone is supposed to be equal, however, teh argument here was that people could stoll be treated equally even if things were separate.

Question 7

Plessy dissent

Answer 7

harlan- no separataion based on race- but he also said some really racist things about chinese race.

Question 8

are japanese americans protected by the 14th?

Korematsu (1944) - facts

Answer 8

in the wake of japanese attacks on the peral harbor, roosevelt establsihed an exec order stating that war efforts required protection against sabotage and espionage. pursuant to that order, an army commissioner issued an exec order that basically removed japanese people out of a specific area and put them in concentration camps.

Question 9

Korematsu- rules

Answer 9

1- exclusion order does NOT violate the equal protection clause

2- however, gov restrictions targeting a specific racial group are inherently suspect and are subject to strict scrutiny.

Question 10

Korematsu- rationale

Answer 10

court relies on hirabayashi- they admit that the order in korematsu is more inconvenient that the curfew in hirabayashi, however, even if it was inconvenient, it still was intended to protect from espionage and sabotage and has a close and definite relationship to the order in place. thus it was constitutional- also the court hinted at using strict scrutiny here.

Question 11

Old case b4 Korematsu

Answer 11

Hirabayashi- case that allowed a curfew for japanese americans bc the military stated that they posed a risk and needed to have a curfew.

Question 12

Future of Korematsu

Answer 12

its overruling is never official anywhere, but it is mentioned in trump v, hawaii.

Question 13

Trump v. Hawaii - quick facts, rule, mmajority, dissent

Answer 13

facts- racist muslim ban on many different arab countries.

majority- CJR, alito, thomas, gorsuch,
- CJR says that korematsu was wrong the day it was decided and has no place in the const. they upheld the muslim ban tho.

Dissent: Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, RBG
- she calls out the parallels between korematsu and hawaii- both are mistakes.

Question 14

Brown v. Board I - Note on oral argument

Answer 14

we have two sides trying to argue what equal protection means- this is an argument that we still have to this day.

Question 15

Brown I- Facts, rule, rationale

Answer 15

facts- family sues on behalf of the segregation taht their black children are experiencing in schools.

rule- seperate educational facilities based on racial classifications are inherently unequal and violate the equal protection clause.

rationale- people keep trying to make this about whether segregated schools offer same leevl of education, but this is about the actual effects that segregation has on students. uf sttae has undertaken the quest to provide edu, then the opportuntiy must be made available to ALL students on EQAUL terms.
*** remember that due processs was mentioned but the court says it was not necessary here.

Question 16

Brown II

Answer 16

This just focused on the remedy
1) public schools must desegregate will all deliberate speed and (2) fed coirt will oversee desegregation

Question 17

Evolution of Brown

Answer 17

we have different cases like goss, Griffin, Green, Pico. Gilmore where we see desegreation happen in more places.

Question 18

Evolution of Brown

Goss

Answer 18

a response to brown was to try to get out of schools that were integrated and transfer to desegregated schools.

court ruled that students cant transfer from schools that they were a minority to schools in which they were a majority. the court ruled this because they wanted to mix people up.

Question 19

Evolution of Brown

Griffin

Answer 19

court ruled that it was illegal to close a school instead of integrating

Question 20

Green v. County

Answer 20

court ruled that it wa sillegal to close a school instead of integrating

Question 21

Green v. County

Answer 21

court ruled that “freedom of choice” plan was unconst bc it undermned the integration of schools

Question 22

Pico

Answer 22

the court nodded toward a potention right to education in a first amendment case addressingw hether books could be removed from libraries due to their content.

Question 23

Gilmore

Answer 23

they expand the ruling in brown to expand outside of public schools, so not borwn could extend to private schools and entities (pools, gyms, etc)

Question 24

The civil rights act and racial equality

Heart of Atlants Motel- facts

Answer 24

Facts: motel does not allow black customers to stay at their hotel- they were loacted near a central highway and a majority of their business was out of state folk.

Question 25

Heart of Atlants Motel- question, rule, rationale

Answer 25

question- does the govt getting involved in this hotels practice (here, section 201a of the CRA which bans discrimination in public places) exceed congress’ commerce power?

answer- NOPE!

rationale- this hotel was located in a tourist are and. thus affected interstate commerce. thus it was within congress’ commerce power.

Question 26

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Answer 26

facts : interracial couple thrown in jail.

rule: state interracial marriage bans violate both EP and DP.

Question 27

Loving Rationale

Answer 27

by warren

• distinctions in the law that rely solely on ancestry have consistently been rejected.
• EP demands that racial classifications be subject to SS. here, there was no justification for why these marriage bans were in place.
• DP- marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be deprived w/o due process.

Question 28

Affirmative Action- what is going on

Answer 28

the argument for affirmative action is that there are good racial classifications andbad racial classifications, in response to the bad racial discrimination, congress and the people came around and said that they wanted to help people who have faced racial discrimiation.

Question 29

History of Affirmative Action

Answer 29

we have
richmond -> metro broadcasting -> adarand.

metro was overruled by adarand- where Thomas joined the coirt and held that all racil classifications, whether imposed by state, fed, local authorities, must be judged under strict scrutiny.

Question 30

affirmative action

Bakke

Answer 30

white student wants to go to UC Davis for med school and was not admitted. Davis reserved 16 spots for qualified minorities as part of an affirmative action plan.

Rule: no quotas allowed. no specific or fixed number of seats. BUT, you can ave a critical mass (as we see in the Michigan cases, but then overruled by new affrimative action case).

Question 31

affirmative action

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)- Facts

Answer 31

Facts: Michigan late school had a policy of enrolling a “critical mass” of unrepresented students, race was just one factor when deciding.

Rule: the equal protection clause does not prohibit the law schools narrowly tailored use of tave and admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in ontaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. 4

Question 32

affirmative action

Grutter- Reasoning

Answer 32

The main idea here was that University can use race to firther the interest of a diverse student body. so long as the they do not use a quota (so they have to take other elements into consideration other than race).

Question 33

affirmative action

Grutter- Thomas Concurrence

Answer 33

The const is colorblind, thus anything involving race (even affirmative action) was not bad.

thomas joins Rehnquist dissent- “critical mas” is too vague and is not consistently applied to different minority groups.

Question 34

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF GRUTTER

Answer 34

OVERRULED BY STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS.

Question 35

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) - facts + rule

Answer 35

facts- undergrad policy awards 20 points to unrepresented students

rule- Michigan’s use of racial preferences here is a violation EP title 6 of the CRA, or 24 USC 1981.

Question 36

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) - Rationale

Answer 36

Awarding 20 points automatically because of someones race isnot right because it does not take into acocunt the individual.
* thus, race is esentially decisive in the outcome.
* did not pass strict scrutiny, thereis acomeplling interest in promoting educational diversity, but the policy failed because it was NOT narrowly tailored.

Question 37

Gratz- Thomas Concurrence

Answer 37

he would have held that the equal protection clause categorically prohibits racial discrimination of any kind in higher educational admissions policies.

Question 38

Parents Involved (2007) - facts

Answer 38

multiple consilidated cases, school districts use race to determine which school some students can attend (oversubscribed schools and transfers). used racial balance diversity. the suit here came form the pople who were denied schools bc of the plan,

Question 39

Parents involved- RULE

Answer 39

Allocations based on race are a violation of the Equal protection clause.

Question 40

Parents Involved- majority and rationale

Answer 40

Roberts, scalia, Thomas, alito

• the court uses strict scrutiny, there is NO compelling interest being sought here as a race is determinative alone. now narrowly tailored.
• he mentions how brown v board stresses that separate but equal is NOT equal. Brown makes it clear that you can’t use race to give people different treatment.

Question 41

Parents Involved- Thomas Concurrence

Answer 41

result is correct, but the plurality argues incorrectly that racially diverse classrooms promote better educational experiences. social studies prive that black students can succeed in historically black colleges. rejects implication that black students can only learn next to white students.

Question 42

Students for Fair Admissions v. President of Harvard (2023) - Facts

Answer 42

harvard college and UNC had very selective admissions practices. they considered merit-based criteria in addition to the applicant’s race. the race was a plus factor that weighed in favor of minority applicants to help maintain a diverse student body.

Question 43

Students for Fair Admissions- Rule

Answer 43

Race- based admission practices violate EP unless they satisfy strict scrutiny, don’t stereotype or work negatively, and have an endpoint.

Question 44

Student for Fair Admissions - Majoirty and Rationale

Answer 44

CJR, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB.

• EP analysis applies to determine the legality of race-based admission practices in both public and private units- thus we use strict scrutiny.
• past cases- the court acknowledged that such practices may increase student body diversity, which is potentially a compelling interest, BUT all forms of racial discrimination remain generally ambigous.
• application- did not satisfy strict scrutiny, the court could not measure whether the asserted compelling interest had a connection. additionally, the admission practices stereotypes and works negatively to discriminate against racial groups. this stereotypes by assuming that thought comes from diversity od race.
• lastly, neither school admissions practice had a sicernable end point.

Question 45

Student for Fair Admissions- Concurrences

Answer 45

Thomas- the const, is colorblind, 14th amendment requires it to be so!
Gorsuch- Should be decided under Title VI bc public and private unis receive

Question 46

Student for Fair Admissions- DISSENT

Answer 46

Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

Sotomayor- society isn’t colorblind, thus we have allowed race-conscious eans of enforcing the equality gurantee.

Jackson- look at the historical discrimination groups have received in income, healthcare, and education, this still persists! Permitting race as one of many factors in uni admissions works to reduce the gaps and benefits ALL students’ exposure to diversity.