Court Cases

Front 1

- Allan Bakke gets rejected from Univ. of California Medical School twice. The school reserved 16 places for qualified minorities so Bakke contends that he was excluded from admission solely on basis of race.
- Question: Did the Univ. of California violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
- Court ruled in favor of Bakke 5 to 4. Justice Powell casted the deciding vote, arguing that the use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
- Court minimized white opposition to the goal of equality while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Back 1

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Front 2

- John Lawrence and Tyron Garner are caught engaging in a sexual act which is illegal in Texas. The State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
- Questions: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law violate the 14thAmendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? And Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
- Court answered the 2 question no and yes, respectively.
- Voted in favor of Lawrence and Garner 6-3. Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
- Court also overruled Bowers v Hardwick, stating their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government.

Back 2

Lawrence v. Texas

Front 3

- Barbara Grutter was rejected from Univ. of Michigan Law School. The Law School admitted that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions. The District Court concluded that the Law School's interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one. The Court of Appeals would reverse Justice Powell's decision in Univ. of Cal v Bakke, and also reject the District court's findings.
- Question: Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
- The Court ruled in a 5-4 vote in favor of Bollinger. Court said that because the Law School conducts an individualized review of each applicant, no decision is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race.

Back 3

Grutter v. Bollinger

Front 4

- Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher were both rejected from Univ. of Michigan because of the same stated reason as Grutter was rejected.
Question: Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
- Court ruled in favor of Gratz 6-3. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Back 4

Gratz v. Bollinger

Front 5

Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
- 7-2 in favor of Griswald. Concluded that though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create zones that establish a right to privacy.
- Legal provision used was Due Process

Back 5

Griswold v. Connecticut

Front 6

- After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate but the two were separated. According to the Idaho Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator because "males must be preferred to females" and Sally challenged the law in court.
- Question: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
- Court unanimously decided that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. Court stated that such a preference is forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause.

Back 6

Reed v. Reed

Front 7

- Roe wanted to get an abortion but Texas law prohibited abortions except to save a woman's life.
- The Court heard arguments twice. First time, Roe's attorney couldn't locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart so sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round but against a new opponent.
- Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
- In a 7-2 vote, Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy ,recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut, protected by the 14th Amendment.
- The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. The laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

Back 7

Roe v. Wade

Front 8

- In 1986, Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The Lower Courts would strike down these restrictions.
- Question: Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
- Court held that none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were unconstitutional, in a 5-4 vote in favor of Webster.
- First, preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions. Second, Due Process Clause did not require states to enter into the business of abortion. Third, no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisionsof the law. Finally, Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability.

Back 8

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Front 9

- Pennsylvania amended its new abortion control law with new provisions. Provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.
- Question: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
- In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed Roe but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions.
- For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions which asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose of imposing an undue burden, which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion viability."
- Legal provision used was Due Process.

Back 9

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Front 10

- Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in a car accident and placed on life-support. Her parents wanted to take her off but the hospital wouldn't do so without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment.
- Question: Did the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment permit Cruzan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment for their daughter?
- n a 5-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incapable persons were not able to exercise such rights.
- Without clear evidence that Cruzan wanted to withdraw evidence the Court found the state's actions constitutional because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients.

Back 10

Cruzan v. Missouri