Universalization+of+Rights

=__Universalization of Rights__= By: Sanjana Rahman & Blake Giosa



__Cases:__

Facts: Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen. Constitutional Question: Could the government deny citizenship to persons born in the United States in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision: No. The government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Impact on Public Policy: This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
 * US v. Kim Wong Ark (1896) **


 * PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) **

Facts: An association advocating for children with disabilities sought assistance from the court to gain access to the public education system. Prior to this time, children with disabilities were deprived of education because of the expense to the school to educate them appropriately.

Constitutional Question: Was the Equal Protection Clause being violated?

Decision: The court determined that saving funds was not a legitimate goal because uneducated children would ultimately become a greater drain on public funds. In the case of PARC v. Commonwealth, the Equal Protection Clause was found to be violated. The Court’s decree laid the foundation for the establishment of the right to an education for all children with disabilities.

Impact: This case caused all students, from the ages of 6 through 21, with disabilities to be provided free public education


 * Lau v. Nichols (1974) **

Facts: In 1971 the San Francisco, California school system was integrated as a result of a federal court decree. Approximately 2,800 Chinese ancestry students

in the school system did not speak English. One thousand of these students received supplemental courses in English language, and 1,800 did not

receive such instruction. A class action suit was brought by the non-English-speaking Chinese students who did not receive additional instruction against

officials responsible for the operation of the San Francisco Unified School District. The students alleged that they were not provided with equal educational opportunities and, therefore, were not being afforded their Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Constitutional Question: Did this violate the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause?

Decision: The Supreme Court did not validate the Equal Protection Clause argument of petitioners, but relied on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which

prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Impact: The decision prompted numerous states to enact laws authorizing and, in some cases, requiring bilingual instruction. Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, which incorporated the Lau mandate.

Facts: A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. Constitutional Question: Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision: Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.
 * Pyler v. Doe (1981) **

Impact: This restrained states from denying a free public education to students for lack of valid immigration status. The decision has since opened the schoolhouse doors to untold numbers of children who might otherwise be deprived of a basic education. Yet today, the two states, California and Alabama have passed laws as part of an effort to return the issue to the Supreme Court.


 * Bowers v. Hardwick (1985) **

Facts: Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.

Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy, thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal?

Decision: No. The divided Court found that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices. Justice Byron White argued that the Court has acted to protect rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution only when those rights are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (Palko v. Connecticut, 1937) or when they are "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965). The Court held that the right to commit sodomy did not meet either of these standards. White feared that guaranteeing a right to sodomy would be the product of "judge-made constitutional law" and send the Court down the road of illegitimacy.

Impact: In the years after Bowers was decided, several state legislatures repealed their sodomy laws. In addition, a number of state courts invalidated sodomy laws under privacy or other provisions of their state constitutions. The same sodomy law that was upheld in Bowers was struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court under the Georgia state constitution in the case of Powell v. State(1998).

Facts: During a visit to her dentist's office, in order to fill a cavity, Sidney Abbott disclosed that although she did not manifest any obvious symptoms she carried the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). When her dentist, RandonBragdon, refused to treat her in his office, offering to conduct any necessary work at a hospital for no extra charge other than use of the facilities, Abbott challenged his policy as discriminatory. Constitutional Question: Can a physician refuse or alter care of an HIV-positive patient without violating the equal treatment stipulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)? Decision: No. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that although the ADA does not force care-givers to treat an "individual [who] poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others," it also prohibits discrimination against any individual "on the basis of disability in the enjoyment of the services of any place of public accommodation by any person who operates [such] a place." The Court then reasoned that since HIV "substantially limits" major life activities, such as reproduction, the infection is a "disability" that entitles its victims to ADA protections. Having said this, however, the Court concluded that only care-givers can determine if treating an HIV-positive individual would constitute a "direct threat" to themselves or others. Therefore, the Court remanded for further risk assessment based on objective medical evidence or risk.
 * Bragdon v. Abbott (1997) **


 * PGA Tour v. Martin (2000) **

Facts: Casey Martin is afflicted with a degenerative circulatory disorder that prevents him from walking golf courses. His disorder constitutes a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). When Casey made a request to use a golf cart for the duration of the qualification tournament onto the professional tours sponsored by PGA Tour, Inc., PGA refused. Martin then filed suit under Title III of the ADA, which requires an entity operating "public accommodations" to make "reasonable modifications" in its policies "when... necessary to afford such...accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such...accommodations." Ultimately, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against PGA, requiring it to allow Martin to use a cart. The court found that the purpose of the PGA's walking rule was to insert fatigue into the skill of shot-making, and that Martin suffered significant fatigue due to his disability, even with the use of a cart. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that golf courses are places of public accommodation during professional tournaments and that permitting Martin to use a cart would not fundamentally alter the nature of those tournaments.

Constitutional Question: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provide access to professional golf tournaments by a qualified entrant with a disability? May a disabled contestant be denied the use of a golf cart because it would "fundamentally alter the nature" of the tournaments to allow him to ride when all other contestants must walk?

Decision: Yes and no. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that Title III of the ADA, by its plain terms, prohibits the PGA from denying Martin equal access to its tours on the basis of his disability and that allowing Martin to use a cart, despite the walking rule, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of the game. "The purpose of the walking rule is... not compromised in the slightest by allowing Martin to use a cart," wrote Justice Stevens, noting Martin's fatiguing disability. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented.


 * Barnhart v. Thomas (2003) **

Facts: After a heart attack left her unable to continue working as a housekeeper in the late 1980s, Pauline Thomas took a job as an elevator operator. By the mid- 1990s, however, Thomas's job and others like it were eliminated as elevators became automated. Thomas applied for Social Security disability benefits because she could not do other work. The Social Security Administration (SSA), however, rejected her claim because, it said, she was still able to perform the duties of her former position. The fact that it was nearly impossible to find such a position, the SSA held, did not entitle her to benefits under disability law. An administrative judge and a federal district court both upheld the SSA's position, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "a claimant's previous work must be substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.“

Constitutional Question: Are persons eligible for Social Security disability benefits if they are still able to perform their jobs, but the jobs no longer exists in meaningful numbers in the national economy?

Decision: No. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the SSA's decision had been a reasonable interpretation of the statute and was therefore entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.


 * Raytheon v. Texas (2003) **

Facts: In 1991, Joel Hernandez tested positive for cocaine use in a drug test administered by his employer. As a result of the incident, he was forced to resign. In 1994, he reapplied for a job from the company. His application was rejected. Hernandez claimed that the company was discriminating against him because of his drug and alcohol addiction (though at the time he reapplied he had been sober for two years) in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The district court sided with the company, dismissing the case before it ever went to trial. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed, however, holding that Raytheon's decision not to rehire Hernandez because of an incident related to his past addiction could constitute discrimination under the act.

Constitutional Question: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act permit employers to refuse to rehire job applicants because of prior workplace rule infractions related to drug or alcohol addiction?

Decision: Yes. The Court unanimously held that an employer may refuse to rehire an employee who was terminated in connection with drug or alcohol-related incidents as long as the refusal is based on a policy of not rehiring employees who previously violated workplace rules rather than on the worker's addiction. That is, an employer may refuse to hire someone who was terminated for coming to work under the influence, but may not refuse to hire someone whose previous addiction did not result in any workplace rule infractions. Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer took no part in this case.

=** Lawrence v. Texas (2003) **=

Facts: Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.

Constitutional Question: Does a statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violate the Due Process Clause?

Decision: Yes. In the 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy laws in Texas, and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.



media type="youtube" key="_ods6uOh198" height="315" width="560"

**Evolution of Universalization of Civil Rights:**

 * Civil Rights have been an issue since long before. People fought for their basic rights. They fought for equality. Universalization of civil rights have evolved as time passes. In the 1990s civil rights were centered around racial equality and equality for people with disabilities. As we move to present time, people are fighting for gender equality and also sexual equality. Gay rights and the right for gay marriage has been a topic of discussion in the recent times. People will always fight for their civil rights especially as the United States becomes more alert and knowledgeable about the different cultures and people.**

Vocab: LEP: Limited English Proficiency Due Process: Fair treatment through judicial system ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

Review Questions: 1) What is the Due Process Clause? 2) When did the US v. Kim Wong Ark occur? 3) Where is the Equal Protection Clause located? 4) Was a restraint against consensual sodomy constitutional? 5) What is the ADA?

Work Cited: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []