Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Loving v. Virginia |
-trial judge defending anti-miscegenation statute invoked God -court rejected state's claim that b/c the statute punishes white and blacks equally, the law does not discriminate. As Court says, "Equal application does not immunize" a law from having to meet the very heavy burden placed on racially discriminatory laws. -the law does not even have a legit purpose. Its only purpose is racial discrimination -law also violates Due Process Clause b/c it denies the Lovings the freedom the marry, which is a vital personal right essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness -chief justice Warren said "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, and it is fundamental to our very existence and survival |
|
|
State Action: Shelley v. Kraemer |
-Grand Prairie, a white St. Louis neighborhood, had a restrictive covenant since 1911. The covenant, which had been renewed frequently since its creation, held that properties were not to be sold to nonwhites. In August 1945, JD and Ethel Shelley, a black couple, bought a house in Grand Prairie.Louis and Fern Kraemer, who were white, sued to have a court enforce the restrictive covenant. -Legal Question: ARe court-enforced restrictive covenants a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment? -Yes. By 6-0 ruling, SC court ruled for the Shelleys -under Civil Rights Cases, purely private discrimination is constitutionally protected. So restrictive covenants, on their own, are not in violation of 14th amm. -but here, judicial enforcement of the covenant turned it into state action. The state wasn't just a passive partner; it was an active partner. Therefore, state enforcement of a restrictive covenant violates 14th amm. |
|
|
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority |
-The majority opinion, written by Justice Tom Clark, looked closely at the specifics of the financing of the parking garage and the building plan's dependence on retail rental income to determine that the Eagle Coffee Shoppe was integral to the government purpose of building and financing a parking garage. Also, a close symbiosis was noted between retail businesses having nearby parking and a garage being close to shopping opportunities to the point where they were a "joint participant". Based on the close interplay between government and company, the court found that the exclusion of black customers was a violation even though no government agency was directly discriminating.-Does the coffee shop's discriminatory practice count as a state action subject to the EP Clause of 14th amm? -Yes. In 6-3 decision, Court ruled that as a lessee public property, the coffee shop is subject to the proscriptions of the 14 amm? -Reasoning- -purely private discrimination is not within the scope of the 14th amm, because of the Civl Rights Cases precedent -but here, the discrimination was not purely private. The parking garage was publicly owned, even though part of the cost of the garage was sustained by private lease payments. Also, the coffee shop benefited from the parking garage, which entangled it even more with the states -the fact that the parking authority was passive(did not actively discriminate)--doesn't get the state off the hook |
|
|
Moose Lodge # 107 v. Irvis |
-Facts-Moose Lodge is a local branch of a national fraternal organization. Lodge policy restricts membership to whites and prohibits member from bringing black guests to the lodge dining room and bar. The Appellee, a black, was refused service because of his race. The Appellee filed an Equal Protection Action naming against the Appellants. The Appellee claimed because the State Liquor board had issued Moose Lodge a license that authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on its premises, the refusal of service was a state action. The trial court granted an injunction restricting the Appellants liquor license until they stopped discriminating. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) stated there needs to be significant state involvement with invidious discrimination in order for there to be a state action.-Court ruled 6-3 that lodge is sufficiently private to be outside the scope of the 14th amm. EP clause. -find the line btw. private and state action is inherently difficult, and no simple formula can provide the answer. -Here discrimination is private in origin, but is not state endorsed. In its prior cases, the court has never held that private businesses become state agents ipso facto when they receive any benefit or service from the state. -as such, the liquor license is simply not enough to qualify as state action |
|
|
Economic Discrimination |
-American social views on economic status have changed since the founding -in the early republic, citizens faced imprisonment if they couldn't pay their debts -in contemporary America, the law is more forgiving of debtors -most support at least a minimal safety net for the poor -standard of review for economic discrimination is rational basis, unless a fundamental right is involved |
|
|
San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez |
-Reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it causes inter-district expenditure disparities. Absolute equality of education funding is not required and a state system that encourages local control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. District Court of Texas reversed. -poor people aren't a suspect class -EPC doesn't require absolute equality -there is no fundamental right to education -financing scheme is not irrational. There is a state interest in fostering local control of schools, even if that means inequality of school financing |
|
|
Aftermath of Rodriguez |
-flood of state litigation -multiple state SCs recognized a right to minimally adequate education under state constitutions, including TX and KS -in 2005, KS SC in Montoy v. State, ruled that state public education financing system violated state constitution -KS SC ordered the legislature to provide $290 million -battle over school financing continues -funding scheme thrown out in favor of block grants for two years -no new formula this legislative session -KS SC decision expected within months |
|
|
Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Romer v. Evans |
-struck down anti-gay amendment to Colorado Const. -Amendment prohibited state and local govs from passing any laws or regulations banning discrimination based on sexual orientation -amendment shows animus toward the class it affects and lacked rational basis -Does North Carolina's anti-LGBT law (HB2) conflict with this decision? -requires public schools and agencies to segregate bathrooms by biological sex -prohibits any city or county from creating new anti-discrimination laws beyond characteristics under state law -NC third state in last five years to ban local anti-discrimination ordinances that protect LGBT people |
