Court Cases

Front 1

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Back 1

upheld slavery

voided missouri compromise, said congress couldn't ban slavery in western territories

black man had no rights in a white man's government

Hint 1

slave rights

Front 2

Plessy v. Ferguson (1986)

Back 2

constitutional justification for segregation

"separate but equal"

Hint 2

7/8 white

Front 3

Guinn v. United States (1915)

Back 3

declared grandfather clauses to be unfair and unconstitutional

Hint 3

grandfather clause

Front 4

Smith v. Allwright (1944)

Back 4

all-white primaries were banned

Hint 4

all white

Front 5

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Back 5

upheld the internment as constitutional as it was during iminent threat to national security

congress has since apologized and authorized benefits to the former internees

Hint 5

japanese internment

Front 6

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Back 6

the available school would have been grossly unequal

thus, the "separate but equal" formula was found to be generally unacceptable in professional schools

Hint 6

the black guy painted himself white, cept his blackness sweatted through

Front 7

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Back 7

school segregation was inherently unconstitutional because it violated the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection

Hint 7

separate but equal and public schools

Front 8

Swann v. Mecklenburg (1971)

Back 8

upheld, but did not required, the practice of school busing as a desegregation method

Hint 8

court ordered busing

Front 9

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Back 9

any "arbitrary" gender-based classification violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

first time the court declared any law unconstitutional on the basis of gender discrimination

Hint 9

gender discrimination and the 14th amendment: selection of an estate’s administrator

Front 10

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Back 10

established the "medium scrutiny" standard for determining gender discrimination

different drinking ages for men and women was unconstitutional gender discrimination

Hint 10

gender distinctions and drinking age

Front 11

United States Steelworkers v. Weber (1979)

Back 11

permitted an affirmative action program to favor african americans if the program is designed to remedy past discrimination

Hint 11

affirmative action and remedying past discrimination

Front 12

California Board of Regents v. Bakke (1978)

Back 12

ordered Bakke admitted, holding that the admissions program did discriminate against him because of his race

but, a university could adopt an "admissions program where race or ethnic background is simply one element – to be weighed fairly against other elements – in the selection process"

but no quotas

Hint 12

precedent!

Front 13

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Back 13

the creation of districts based solely on racial composition as the district drawers’ abandonment of traditional redistricting standards such as compactness and contiguity is unconstitutional

gave legal standing to challenges to any congressional map with an oddly shaped minority-majority district that may not be defensive on grounds other than race

Hint 13

creation of districts based solely on race

Front 14

Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)

Back 14

sexual harassment that is so pervasive as to create a hostile or abusive work environment is a form of prohibited gender discrimination

no single factor, the Court said, is required to win a sexual harassment case

the law is violated when the workplace environment "would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive"

workers are not required to prove that the workplace environment is so hostile as to cause them "severe psychological injury" or that they are unable to perform their jobs

the protection of federal law comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to psychological difficulty

Hint 14

threshold for sexual harassment claims

Front 15

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

Back 15

federal programs that classify people by race, even for an ostensibly benign purpose such as expanding opportunities for members of minorities, should be presumed to be unconstitutional

such programs must be subject to the most searching judicial inquiry and can survive only if they are "narrowly tailored" to accomplish a "compelling government interest"

Hint 15

affirmative action and strict scrutiny

Front 16

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Back 16

categorical exclusion of women from state-funded colleges unconstitutional

Hint 16

VMI and female admission exclusion

Front 17

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999)

Back 17

school districts can be held liable for sexual harassment in cases of student-on-student harassment where the school district has knowledge of the harassment or is deliberately indifferent to it

the harassment must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school

Hint 17

sexual harassment in public schools

Front 18

Hunt v. Cromartie (1999)

Back 18

conscious consideration of race is not automatically unconstitutional if the state’s primary motivation was potentially political rather than racial

Hint 18

gerrymandering and political motivation

Front 19

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District (2007)

Back 19

prohibited assigning students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieving racial integration

racial balancing is not a compelling interest for high schools

Hint 19

nosy high school parents?