Minorities+and+Equal+Rights

__**AP**__
 * Minorities and Equal Rights**

__**Evolution of Civil Liberties**__

The Supreme Court has not been consistent with its decisions concerning civil liberties. It often overturns its own verdicts. Its decisions seem to be very dependent upon the political atmosphere in the country at the time, and fluctuate with what the people want at the moment, more than looking at the long-term effects of the decisions. Therefore, it is hard to predict how the Court will rule in future cases, without knowing the political atmosphere surrounding the ruling.

This amendment was added to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments, which were amendments attempting to reconstruct the American South after the Civil War. This amendment consists of different important clauses, such as the Citizenship Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.
 * __The Fourteenth Amendment__**

The Citizenship Clause provides a broader definition of citizenship of the United States, overruling the decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford. The Due Process Clause denies state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain circumstances to ensure fairness. Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause requires every state to provide equal protection for the people.

The original intent of this amendment was to protect the rights of former slaves throughout the nation. Eventually, the Fourteenth Amendment protected the rights of different minorities, including women.


 * __Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Federalism
 * Keywords:** Missouri Compromise
 * Background:** Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. In 1833 through 1843, Scott lived in Illinois (a free state, where slavery was illegal as ruled by in the Missouri Compromise). Scott returned to Missouri and sued unsuccessfully, saying that because of his residency in Illinois, Scott was considered a free man. Scott’s master argued that any pure-blood Negro or descendents of slaves should not be considered as a U.S. citizen according to Article III of the Constitution.
 * Question:** Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave?
 * Answer:** Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV of the Constitution, only U.S. citizens could be a citizen of a state and only Congress can grant national citizenship. The court ruled that because Dred Scott is not considered a citizen, he also does not have the right to sue.
 * Significance:** The court ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
 * Policy Impact:** Even though a slave lived in a free state, he/she is not considered to be a citizen of the United States.


 * __Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Rights, Civil Liberties
 * Keywords:** Fourteenth Amendment
 * Mnemonic Device:** Bradwell’s gender is not “well”-qualified to practice law in Illinois
 * Background:** Myra Bradwell argued that she had a right to obtain a license to practice law in Illinois because she was a citizen of the United States.
 * Question:** Is the right to obtain a license to practice law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to all citizens of the United States?
 * Answer:** No. Although individuals have rights that the government cannot take away, practicing law in a state is not considered as a right. The court argued that this right has nothing to do with citizenship.
 * Significance:** Justice Bradley explained the reasons why it was natural and suitable for women to be excluded from the legal profession. In addition, he mentions the significance of maintaining the “respective spheres of man and women” with women’s roles as mother and wife in accordance with the “law of the Creator”.
 * Policy Impact:** Women do not have the same rights as men and are not qualified to obtain the same jobs as them either.


 * __Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties and Rights
 * Keywords:** Jim Crow laws,13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, octoroon
 * Mnemonic Device:** "Please? Nope, you're separate but equal"
 * Background: ** Homer Adolph Plessy was a successful businessman living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was comfortable around both racial groups and he had an African American grandparent. Plessy was considered a octoroon (one-eighth African American) and intentionally broke a law to challenge the Jim Crow Laws and initiate the case. Plessy refuses to sit in the segregated area of a train and was arrested and fined. He later appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 * Question:**Can the state of Louisiana constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities?
 * Answer: ** Yes. In a 7-1 decision the Supreme Court Justices ruled that states can constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities. It was noted that the law did not violate either the 13th or 14th amendment because the 13th amendment only applied to slavery and the 14th amendment did not give African Americans social equality. It only promised political and civil equality.
 * Significance: ** The outcome of this case was significant because it upheld the notion that racial segregation was constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine.
 * Policy Impact: ** Even though the 13th and 14th amendment protected African Americans from slavery and guaranteed civil and political equality, they were still not socially equal. Racial segregation was still constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine.

__**Missouri ex el. Gaines v. Canada (1938) **__

 * AP Government Units:** Civil Rights, Civil Liberties


 * Keywords:** Affirmative Action

**The case**: A black college student applied to the University of Missouri for their law program, and was denied. Missouri had a state statute that authorized the university to pay for African-American students to attend an out of state school, but the student sued on the basis of equal protection. **The question**: Is the provision for education of Missouri-resident African Americans in other States sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of equal protection? **The decision**: Although Missouri is not required to supply legal training, the state is bound to not reject African Americans to law school on the basis of color. **Meaning of the decision at the time of the ruling**: The University of Missouri was declared to have unconstitutional admissions processes, which increased the rights and education of blacks residing in Missouri. **Current Interpretation**: The basis of denying minorities admissions/rights based on their color of skin was declared unconstitutional. Impact on Public Policy: Rather than allowing black students into the law school, Missouri ended up establishing a law school especially for black law students.


 * __Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties and Rights
 * Keywords:** restrictive covenant, Equal Protection Clause, injunctions
 * Background:** Kraemer and other white property owners who owned residents in Missouri governed by a restrictive covenant which was an agreement to prevent blacks from owning property in Kraemer’s subdivision. A couple, the Shelleys, bought a house in this area and the Kraemers proceed to take it back after they had just purchased it. The Kraemers soon after went to court to enforce the restrictive covenant against the Shelleys.
 * Question: ** Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
 * Answer: ** Yes. In a 6-0 decision the court ruled that state court could not prevent the sale of real property to black constitutionally even if the property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Alone the restrictive covenant violates no law but when enforced, state court injunctions constitute state action in violation of the 14th amendment.
 * Significance: ** This case showed that restrictive covenants could not be used to prevent black from owning property. The covenants can exist but not be enforced.
 * Policy Impact: ** Although restrictive covenant we common at the time and are still part of deeds today. The Shelley v. Kraemer can only made them unenforceable.


 * __Brown v. Board of Education (1954)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties and Rights
 * Keywords:** segregation, 14th amendment, separate but equal doctrine
 * Background: ** Linda Brown and eight year old girl was denied admission to a nearby elementary and instead enrolled by school officials into another school for non whites. This new school was much farther than the school for just white kids. Brown’s parents decided to sue the school system/board of education who was also the one in charge of keeping the different schools separate.
 * Question: ** Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
 * Answer: ** Yes. The decision was unanimous 9-0. The Justices ruled that the separate but equal doctrine had no place and that separation in the field of education and educational facilities was unequal segregation and is a denial of the equal protection of the law.
 * Significance: ** This was a turning point in the idea that centuries of segregationist thought and practice in America were reversed. The Plessy doctrine of separate but equal was also reversed.
 * Policy Impact: ** This case had a big impact and was considered to be a transforming event with the birth of a political and social revolution.

__**Loving v. Virginia (1967)**__
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties, Civil Rights
 * Keywords:** antimiscegenation, Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause
 * Background:** In 1958 two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving got married in the District of Columbia and shortly after returned to Virginia to live out their lives. Jeter and Loving were then charged with breaking the state's anti miscegenation statute which prohibited interracial marriages. The couple was found guilty and sentences to a year in prison. The judge of the case also offered to omit their sentence if the couple were to leave and not return to Virginia for the next 25 years.
 * Question:**Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
 * Answer:** The court ruled unanimously (9-0) that the antimiscegenation law did in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the Virginia law had no legitimate purpose and that it also violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 * Significance:** The Court ruled that the decision of who to marry regardless of race was up to the person not the states and therefore marriage decisions should not be messed with.
 * Policy Impact:** The denial of the right to interracial marriage was declared a violation of 14th Amendment and thus allowed for interracial couples to be recognized in their society.

**Background:** After the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case there had not been much of a movement towards the desegregation of public schools. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina about 14,000 black students were attending schools that were either all black or predominantly black. The were many solutions made by the lower court in order to settle this issue but it eventually reached the supreme court where the final ruling was made.
 * __Swann v. Charlotte -- Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)__**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties and Rights
 * Keywords:** state-imposed segregation, desegregated
 * Question: ** Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?
 * Answer: ** In a 9 to 0 unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. The court stated that the constitutional mandate of the Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools did not require that the composition of every school was not all black or all white but it required that if there are school that are all black or all white that they are not that way because of segregation.
 * Significance: ** The court ruled that the separation of black and white students in different facilities was constitutional as long as it wasn't because of segregation.
 * Policy Impact: ** Blacks could still be separated from whites in the field of education as long as it is not because of segregation.


 * __ Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) __**
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Liberties, Civil Rights
 * Keywords:** Equal Protection, Affirmative Action, Fourteenth Amendment
 * Background:** Allan Bakke, a thirty-five year old white man, applied twice to the University of California Davis Medical School, but got rejected both times. The University of California Davis school reserved sixteen spots out of 100 spots of upcoming students for “qualified” minorities, as part of their affirmative action program. Bakke’s qualifications, on the other hand, exceeded the qualifications of the minorities who were admitted in the Medical School in both of the years Bakke applied. Bakke went to trial, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court.
 * Question**: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
 * Answer:** Yes and No. There was no single majority opinion. Four justices argued that any racial quota supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, and ordered the medical school to admit Bakke. Powell contested that the strict use of racial quotes that the school used violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The other justices argued that considering race in admission decisions in higher education is constitutional. Powell agreed that considering race was allowed as one of the several admission criteria.
 * Significance:** The court decreased white opposition for the goal of equality, in favor of Bakke, but still benefiting racial minorities through affirmative action.
 * Policy Impact:** Quotas cannot be used in college admissions. Race can still be considered, as a small factor of whether or not someone gets into college, but other circumstances must also be considered.

__**Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)**__
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Rights, Civil Liberties
 * Keywords:** Due Process
 * Background:** A contractor, Adarand, placed the lowest bid as a subcontractor for a part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. The federal contract stated that the prime contracted who would hire small business managed by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” (African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans,Asian Pacific Americans and other minorities), would receive a bonus. Gonzales Construction Company, another subcontractor, was given the job, because the company was certified as a minority business and Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have used Adarand had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.
 * Question:** Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
 * Answer:** Yes. The court ruled that all racial classifications, whether it was inflicted by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review. Moreover, the court stated that compensation programs which are based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards.Because race is not a legitimate indicator for a presumption of disadvantage and therefore obtain favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be evaluated under strict scrutiny standard.
 * Significance:** The court overruled Metro Broadcasting and established that all race-based classifications must be evaluated under strict scrutiny standards.
 * Policy Impact:** All race-based classifications must be reviewed under strict scrutiny standards since race is not a valid indicator for a presumption of disadvantage and cannot be given favored treatment.

__**Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)**__
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Rights, Civil Liberties
 * Keywords:** Equal Protection, Civil Rights Act of 1964
 * Background:** In 1977, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan and a well-qualified student, applied to University of Michigan Law School, but was rejected. The Law School admitted that they consider race when admitting incoming students because it adds diversity to the student body.
 * Question:** Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
 * Answer:** No. The court ruled that the Law school did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court explained that since the Law School closely analyzes the individuality of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically off of a variable, such as race and that this process guarantees that all factors that may create more diversity in the student body are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race- conscious admissions program does not unduly harm non-minority applicants."
 * Significance:** The Supreme Court upheld the process of affirmative action of the University of Michigan Medical School because the admissions of the Medical School considered race and not only used that factor as the main reason of admitting the student. If the school, however, amount to a quota system, it would be unconstitutional under Regents of University of California v. Bakke.

=

 * Policy Impact:** Admissions should take race into account, but not have that be the only factor of getting in. In addition, they should consider other individualized factors when reviewing a student’s application.======

__ **Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) ** __
**The case **: In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts as a well-qualified student. Additionally, in 1997, Patrick Hamacher applied to the University as a well-qualified student. Both were denied admission due to the fact that they were white.
 * AP Government Units:** Civil Rights, Civil Liberties
 * Keywords:** Equal Protection, Civil Rights Act of 1964

=
**The question**: Does the University of Michigan's admission policy to grant 20 out of 100 possible points to students of a minority ethnicity violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? ======

=
**The decision**: University of Michigan's admission policy does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, as it does not give a compelling argument of interest that states why the discriminatory acts against whites is reasonable. ======

=
**Meaning of the decision at the time of the ruling**: Although affirmative action is still constitutional, it has been dealt a blow that weakens the effects. Current interpretation: Denying rights to citizens simply because they are white is not constitutional, and is not afforded protection by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ======

=
**Impact on Public Polic**y: Again, while some schools such as Penn State and University of Georgia have increased their diversity, Pennsylvania State Higher Education Program has decreased the impact of race on the admissions process. ======

__**Questions: **__ 1. What was the importance of the Regents of University of California v. Bakke case? What was it's impact?

2. List and explain the verdict of two court cases that dealt with non-minorities suing schools.

3. Which court case overruled Plessy v. Ferguson? What was the verdict? __**Works Cited**__ ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS v. PENA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of

Law. 06 April 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841>.

BRADWELL v. ILLINOIS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 30

March 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_0>. DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of

Law. 08 April 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1856/1856_0/>.

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 April 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/>.

Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar04.html

Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/swann-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-county-board

"LOVING v. VIRGINIA." Loving v. Virginia. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395

Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar38.html

Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2013.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar29.html

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE. The Oyez Project at IIT

Chicago Kent College of Law. 04 April 2013.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/

http://anatomyofbrown.wikispaces.com/Missouri+ex+rel.+Gaines+v.+Canada

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/equal-protection-constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan-constitutional-law-law/gratz-v-bollinger/