US Supreme Court and Civil Rights - Topic 4.5

Question 1

How can legal action achieve change in US politics?

Answer 1

• Groups can appeal cases to the Court. The
  Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Neccessary (BAMN), brought a case in 2014 challenging a ban on affirmative actin in the Michigan state constitution.
• Individuals can bring such cases, which can have a wide-ranging impact. Such cases are Brown v BofE (1954) and Fisher v Uni of Texas (2013 & 2016)
• Groups can submit amicus curiae. More than 60 amicus curiae were filed in the case of Trump v Hawaii (2018) regarding the ‘travel ban’, including briefs from the NAACP, and individuals such as Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim US army captain who had been killed in action in Iraq

Question 2

How is racial equality achieved in the modern US system?

Answer 2

Through affirmative action policies where minority groups get a helping hand in life.

Question 3

How can mass demonstrations and direct action achieve change?

Answer 3

• BLM movement held a number of protests after the deaths of young African American men at the hands of the police
• Hispanic communities led protests against Trump’s executive order separating families
• The 2017 Women’s March drew 200,000 people to Washington D.C. to protest the inauguration of Trump and to fight for women’s rights

Question 4

How can the media help achieve change in the US?

Answer 4

• Twitter allowed for the growth of notable movements, with #BlackLivesMatter starting on the platform, and the #MeToo campaign gaining considerable attention through this medium
• Twitter also aided in the organisation of mass protests such as the Women’s March in 2017 and provided a free platform to convey the turnout and aims of these movements

Question 5

How is affirmative action used to achieve racial equality?

And what are some of the issues with it?

Answer 5

It allows for disadvantaged groups to be given advantages to try to create a more equal society, whether this is through the recognition of rae in university admissions or the use of ‘busing’, through which children were transported to schools outside their neighbourhoods to ‘remedy’ past racial segregation.

In the case Schuette v Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), the ban on affirmative action in the Michigan state constitution was not unconstitutional. The immediate impact was limited, reversing a lower court decision by upholding the Michigan state constitution’s ban.

In the case Fisher v Uni of Texas (2013), the Court ruled that while race could be a consideration in university admissions, a court would need to confirm this was ‘necessary’. In Fisher II (2016), the Court found that the uni of Texas admissions policy met the requirements ruled in Fisher I (2013). The ruling of Fisher I (2013) upheld Grutter v Bollinger (2003). Fisher II (2016) upheld the use of affirmative action for uni admissions.

Question 6

How does immigration reform improve racial equality in the US?

Answer 6

Obama failed to pass both DREAM ad the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill, which would have reformed the immigration system and given undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Instead, Obama used actions like DACA to achieve reform. He extended his executive order to DAPA in 2014, two years after DACA, but key aspects were struck down in 2016. Trump attempted to repeal DACA, while Biden strengthen DACA when first in office.

Question 7

How does immigration reform improve raical equality in the US?

Immigration cases from 2012 to 2018

Answer 7

• Arizona v U.S. (2012): The Court struck down key aspects of an Arizonan law, including the provision that immigrants must carry registration documents because it conflicted with a federal law. The law was notable for the clash of state v federal power. It set the precedent that opportunities for state action over the issue of immigration were limited
• Texas v U.S. (2016): The Court split 4-4, which meant the lower court ruling stoof, striking down Obama’s DAPA executive order
• Trump v Hawaii (2018): The Court ruled that Trump’s so called ‘travel ban’ was not unconstitutional and fell within the remit of executive power. Immigration activists had hoped this ruling might curb presidential power in this area and believed it violated the First Amendment. The liberal justices argued it was religiously motivated

Question 8

What recent Court cases have made it more difficult for people to vote?

2014-2021

Answer 8

• Shelby Count v Holder (2014): Struck down aspects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required areas with historic records of making it difficult for minorities to vote to gain federal clearance before changing their electoral practices
• Husted v Randolph Institute (2018): The ruling allowed Ohio to continue its practice of ‘voter caging’. That’s if someone has note voted for a while, they’re sent a notice through the mail. If this is returned undelivered and the voter doesn’t vote in the next two federal elections, they’re struck from the voting register
• Brnovich v DNC (2021): Arizona’s laws on ballot collect and banning out-of-precinct voting didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act and were not discriminatory