Civil Rights

Front 1

Richmond v Crosan

Back 1

Court held that Richmond city council minority set-aside program, giving preference to minority business enterprises in awarding municipal contracts, unconstitutional under equal protection clause.
(State Law)(1989)

Front 2

U.C. Regents v Bakke

Back 2

Bakke applied to U.C. Davis medical school, was denied. Claimed "reverse discrimination", court rules rejection was illegal because use of strict affirmation action quotas was inappropriate.(1977)

Front 3

Affirmitive action

Back 3

Designed to give opportunities to under represented classes/groups.

Front 4

Clinton v Jones

Back 4

Court refused to reverse lower court's decision that allowed paula jones's civil case against clinton to continue.
(1997)

Front 5

U.S. v Virginia

Back 5

Court struck down virginia's military institutes male only admission policy, because VMI failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for its sex-biased admission policy. Violated 14th amendment equal protection clause.(1996)(gender group)

Front 6

Romer v Evans

Back 6

Colorado adopted amendment 2 to their state constitution, which forbid protections to those who suffer discrimination based on sexual orientation. Court ruled amendment 2 violated 14th amendment's equal protection clause.(1996)

Front 7

Bob Jones U. v U.S.

Back 7

Bob Jones University dedicated to "fundamentalist Christian Beliefs" which included prohibitions against interracial dating/marriage, which lead to expulsion in Bob Jones university, IRS adopted a district court decision that prohibited IRS from giving tax- exempt status to private schools engaging on racial discrimination. University claimed IRS abridged religious liberty. Court ruled IRS was correct to revoke tax-exempt status, did not meet requirements by providing "beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life" to tax payers w/ special tax status.(1983)

Front 8

Reynolds v Sims

Back 8

Sims Challenged apportionment of the state leegislature, alabama consitution said each county entitled to atleast 1 representative/were to be as many senatorial districts as there senators. Court upheld challenge, hold that equal protection clause demanded "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens..."..(Voting/Race group)(Alabama)(1963)

Front 9

Grutter v Bollinger

Back 9

Barbara Grutter, white resident of michigan, rejected from university of michigan law chool, had goodgrades/sat score, school admitted uses race as a factor in making admission decisions because serves "compelling interest in achieving diversity among the student body". Court held equal protection clause doesnt prohibit law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions because it has educational benefits that flow from diverse student body.(related to bakke)(2002)

Front 10

Garcia v San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority

Back 10

San antonio metro. transit authority(SAMTA), main provider of transportation on san antonio, claimed it was exempt from minimum wages/overtime requirements of fair labor standards act. argued that provided "traditional" gov. function, which exempted it from federal controls according to doctrine of federalism established in national leagues of cities v ursey. Court ruled SAMTA subject to congressional legislation under commerce clause.(1983)

Front 11

Parents involved in community schools v Seattle school district No.1

Back 11

Seattle school district allowed students to apply to any high school in district, when school oversubscribed district used system of tiebrakers, 2nd most important one was racial factor. Non-profit group, parents involved in community schools, sued district, arguing racial tiebraker violated equal protection clause of 14th amendment/civil rights act of 1964. Court applied "strict scrutiny" framework, found the district's racial tiebraker plan unconstitutional under equal protection clause of 14th.(2006)

Front 12

Swann v Adams

Back 12

Invalidated apportionment of Florida legislature/subsequent reapportionment, Florida failed to meet standards of voter equality set forth in reynolds v sims.(1966)

Front 13

Harris v Forklift Sys.

Back 13

Teresa Harris sexually harassed by employer, filed suit in federal court claiming harassment created "abrusive work environment" in violation of title VII of civil rights act of 1964, employer countered by saying harassment not severe enough to affect her psychologically/impair ability to work and district court agreed. Court ruled district court wrong to focus on whether harassment focused on "concrete physchological harm". Title VII bars environment that can be perceived as hostile/abusive.(1993)

Front 14

Hopwood v Texas

Back 14

Cheryl Hopwood rejected from university of texas law school despite being better qualified than miniority candidates.ClR helped challenge it, Fifth court, 4yrs later, ruled in her favor. Ruling(not supreme court) 14th amendment forbids state universities from using race as factor in admissions, supreme court declined case, for a time banning affirmative action in texas, louisiana, mississippi.(1996)(1st case that would have challenged bakke)

Front 15

Baker v Carr

Back 15

Baker alleged 1901 law designed to apportion seats for state's general assembly were virtually ignored, reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth/population shifts. Court held that there were no such questioons to be answered i nthis case and legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.(1960)

Front 16

U.S. v Morrison

Back 16

Christy Brzonkala while enrolled at virginia Polytechnic institute, alleged that antonio morrison/james crawford raped her, filed complaint in virginia tech's sexual assault policy, morrison found guilty crawford not, punishment set aside found "excessive". Brzonkala dropped out/sued morrison/crawford/virginia tech alleging that there attack violated 42 usc section 13981, part of violence against women act of 1994(VAWA), morrison/crawford countered w/ 13981 was unconstitutional, district court found congress lacked authority under commerce clause/14th amendment to enact it. Supreme court held congress lacked authority to enact statute.(1999)

Front 17

Adarand Constructors v Pena

Back 17

Adarand, a contractor specialized in highway guardrail work, submitted lowest bis as subcontractor for part of project funded by u.s. department of transportation. prime contractor accepted gonzalez contstruction company over adarand only because they received additional payment for hiring a minority business whic adarand was not. Court held all racial classifications, whether federal/state/local, must pass strict scrutiny review.(1994)

Front 18

Korematsu v U.S.

Back 18

During WW2, executive order 9066/congressional statutes gave military authority to exclude citizens of japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense/vulnerable to espionage, korematsu remained in san leandro, california and violated civilian exlusion order No.34 of U.S. armyy. Court sided w/ gov. and held need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights.(1944)

Front 19

Reed v Reed

Back 19

Idaho probate code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After death of adopted son both Sally and Cecil reed sought to be named administrator of son's estate(Reed's were separated). Sally challenged probate code. Court ruled law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional.(1971)

Front 20

Craig v Boren

Back 20

An Oklahoma law prohibiteed sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under 21, females under 18, Curtis Craig(male between 18-21/licensed vendor) challenged law as discriminatory. Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications.(1976)

Front 21

Gratz v Bollinger

Back 21

Jennifer gratz(gpa 3.8 act 25)/Patrick Hamacher(gpa 3.0 act 28) rejected from university of michigan's college of literature. university admits it used race as factor in making admissions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body". admitted african americans, hispanics, native americans more often because "underepresented" on campus. After Gutter, Gratz/Hamacher petitioned supreme court for writ of certiorari, granted it. Court held that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the equal protection clause and Title VII.(2002)(related to bakke)

Front 22

Gonzalez v Oregon

Back 22

Oregon enacted death with dignity act, law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated controlled substance act of 1970(CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued ashcroft, federal/ninth court held Ashcroft's directive illegal. Supreme Court held congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not define general standards of state medical practice. CSA did not authorize attorney general John Ashcroft to declare medical practice authorized under state law illegitimate.(2005)

Front 23

Gomillion v Lightfoot

Back 23

Alabama legislature re-drew the electoral district boundaries of Tuskegee, replacing what had been a region with a square shape wiith a 28 sided figure, the effect of the new district was to exclude essentially all blacks from the city limits of Tuskegee and place them in a district where no whites live. Court held act 140 of the Alabama legislature violated 15th amendment.(1960)

Front 24

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v U.S.

Back 24

Title II of civil rights act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operation affected commerce. Heart of Atlanta motel in Atlanta, georgia, refused to accept black americans and was charged with violating Title II. Court held that commerce clause allowed congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the civil rights act of 1964 passed constitutional muster.(1964)

Front 25

Loving v Virginia

Back 25

2 residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter(black woman)/Richard Loving(white man) wwere married in district of columbia. Lovings returned to virginia shortly thereafter. Couple charged w/ violating state's antimiscegenation statute(banned inter-racial marriages), found guilty/sentenced to 1yr in jail in lower court. Supreme court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the equal protection clause. Virginia law, court found had no legitimate purpose "independent of racial discrimination".(1966)

Front 26

California Prop. 187

Back 26

Did not allow illegal immigrants to go to public school/doctor, was declared unconstitutional.(1984)

Front 27

California Prop. 209

Back 27

Outlawed affirmative action in State Schools.(1996)

Front 28

de facto segregation

Back 28

Segregation that happens "by fact" rather than by legal requirement.

Front 29

de jure segregation

Back 29

segregation that is imposed by law.

Front 30

restrictive covenants

Back 30

A covenant acknowledged in a deed or lease that restricts the free use or occupancy of property.

Front 31

Americans with Disabilities Act

Back 31

Opened up services/employment to the 43million Americans with disibilities.(Effective January 26, 1992)

Front 32

Title IX

Back 32

law that requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding.(1972)

Front 33

Family Medical Leave Act

Back 33

most Federal employees are entitled to a total of up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the following purposes:
-the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and the care of such son or daughter;
-the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care;
-the care of spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee who has a serious health condition.
-a serious health condition of the employee that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her positions.(1993)

Front 34

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Back 34

-Established civil rights section of justice department.
-Empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote.
-Established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures.
(final act weakened)

Front 35

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 35

-outlawed arbitary discrimination in voter registration and expedited voting rights lawsuits.
-Barred discrimination in public accomadations engaged in interstate commerce.
-Authorized the department of justice of initiate lawsuits to desegregate public facilities and schools.
-provided for the withholding of federal funds from discriminatory state/local programs.
-prohibited discrimination in employment on grounds of race,color,religion,national origin,gender.
-Created the Equal Employment Opportunity commission(EEOC) to monitor/enforce the bans on employment discrimination.

Front 36

Civil Rights Act of 1968

Back 36

aka Fair housing act of 1968:
Congress passed the act in an effort to impose a comprehensive solution to the problem of unlawful discrimination in housing based on race, color, sex, national origin, or religion.

Front 37

Voting Rights Act 1965

Back 37

Outlawed discriminatory voting practices in many southern states after Civil War, i.e. literacy tests/grandfather clauses as a prerequisite to voting.

Front 38

Voting Rights Act 1982

Back 38

Prohibited violation of voting rights by any practices discriminating based on race.

Front 39

Executive Order 8802

Back 39

No discrimination by race in federal positions.

Front 40

Executive Order 9906

Back 40

Japanese Internment.

Front 41

Executive Order 9981

Back 41

established equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services.

Front 42

Executive Order 11246

Back 42

-Protects employees of covered Federal contractors and subcontractors from employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
-Requires that certain employers take affirmative action to ensure that all qualified applicants and employees receive equal employment opportunity.
-Enforced by the Employment Standards Administration’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Front 43

Strict Scrutiny

Back 43

Used to determine the constitutionality of certain laws.(used in race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty cases)

Front 44

Intermediate Scrutiny

Back 44

Test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality.(used in gender cases)

Front 45

Rational Basis

Back 45

A test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality.(no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue)