Thurgood Marshall is in an elite group of lawyers, from 1940 until 1960, his time as lead counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) placed him at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. During his tenure, he argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court of America and won 29 of those cases. This prolific use of the law to fight discrimination gave him the moniker “Mr. Civil Rights”. His skill as a lawyer helped to overturn or change laws that discriminated in voting, transportation, housing, and schooling. He specifically challenged laws in the areas of racial inequality in voting practices, racially restricting covenants in housing, segregation in public transportation and public education.
Smith v. Allwright (1944)
Lonnie E. Smith, was a black voter in Texas who sued the county election official S.S. Allright for the right to vote in a primary election for the Democratic Party. Texas was only one of several Southern states that had enacted laws that effectively made party politics only open to white people. In order to be a member of the Democratic Party, the member must be white. Earlier court cases had only reinforced the Democratic Parties’ right to disenfranchise blacks, Mexican Americans, and other minority groups from voting. The court decisions up until this point maintained that the Democratic Party was a private organization and had the right to determine its own set of rules. Thurgood Marshall, who was representing this case for the NAACP, argued this case in favor of Lonnie E. Smith. The argument presented to the Justices for Smith, was that the state had given some of its authority to the Democratic Party, and the Party’s rules of membership denied him the ability to vote in the only meaningful election in his jurisdiction. The Court ruled in Smith’s favor stating that the state had delegated some of its authority to the Democratic Party and Smith had been denied the ability to vote. Smith v. Allwright is considered one of the major victories of the early Civil Rights movement. This ruling helped develop the Public Function Concept, which labels activities as state actions even when performed by private citizens or groups. Morgan v. Virginia (1946) Before Rosa Parks, there was Irene Morgan who was traveling to Baltimore, Maryland on a Greyhound bus. While traveling through Virginia, two white passengers boarded a crowded bus, and the driver asked Morgan and another African American woman to give up their seats. Morgan refused to change her seat, so the bus driver called the sheriff. When trying to arrest her, Morgan fought with the deputy who was trying to remove her from the bus. She was convicted of violating the state law for segregation on public transportation and resisting arrest. She plead guilty to the resisting charge, but refused to plead guilty to violating the Virginia’s public transportation segregation law. She appealed her case on constitutional grounds all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall argued the case in favor of Morgan. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed Morgan’s argument, striking down the Virginia law and any similar laws in other states that required segregation in interstate passenger travel. This is an important case because it …show more content…
D. Shelley, an African American with six children who purchased a St. Louis house. The house had a racial covenant that had not been disclosed to Shelley. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to restrain the Shelley’s from taking possession of their property, due to the covenant restrictions that barred people from the Negro or Mongolian race from occupying the property. Earlier laws such as Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), had upheld the right of individuals to make private contracts not to sell or rent property to members of other racial or ethnic groups. In its Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, the Court did not directly overturn Corrigan, it ruled that the racially based restrictive covenants are valid under the Fourteenth Amendment and could be voluntarily adhered to, but any legal action to enforce these covenants would make it a state action that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is an important ruling as it emphasized the difference between private acts (not restricted) and state actions (limited) in relationship to the Fourteenth
Smith v. Allwright (1944)
Lonnie E. Smith, was a black voter in Texas who sued the county election official S.S. Allright for the right to vote in a primary election for the Democratic Party. Texas was only one of several Southern states that had enacted laws that effectively made party politics only open to white people. In order to be a member of the Democratic Party, the member must be white. Earlier court cases had only reinforced the Democratic Parties’ right to disenfranchise blacks, Mexican Americans, and other minority groups from voting. The court decisions up until this point maintained that the Democratic Party was a private organization and had the right to determine its own set of rules. Thurgood Marshall, who was representing this case for the NAACP, argued this case in favor of Lonnie E. Smith. The argument presented to the Justices for Smith, was that the state had given some of its authority to the Democratic Party, and the Party’s rules of membership denied him the ability to vote in the only meaningful election in his jurisdiction. The Court ruled in Smith’s favor stating that the state had delegated some of its authority to the Democratic Party and Smith had been denied the ability to vote. Smith v. Allwright is considered one of the major victories of the early Civil Rights movement. This ruling helped develop the Public Function Concept, which labels activities as state actions even when performed by private citizens or groups. Morgan v. Virginia (1946) Before Rosa Parks, there was Irene Morgan who was traveling to Baltimore, Maryland on a Greyhound bus. While traveling through Virginia, two white passengers boarded a crowded bus, and the driver asked Morgan and another African American woman to give up their seats. Morgan refused to change her seat, so the bus driver called the sheriff. When trying to arrest her, Morgan fought with the deputy who was trying to remove her from the bus. She was convicted of violating the state law for segregation on public transportation and resisting arrest. She plead guilty to the resisting charge, but refused to plead guilty to violating the Virginia’s public transportation segregation law. She appealed her case on constitutional grounds all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall argued the case in favor of Morgan. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed Morgan’s argument, striking down the Virginia law and any similar laws in other states that required segregation in interstate passenger travel. This is an important case because it …show more content…
D. Shelley, an African American with six children who purchased a St. Louis house. The house had a racial covenant that had not been disclosed to Shelley. Louis Kraemer, who lived ten blocks away, sued to restrain the Shelley’s from taking possession of their property, due to the covenant restrictions that barred people from the Negro or Mongolian race from occupying the property. Earlier laws such as Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), had upheld the right of individuals to make private contracts not to sell or rent property to members of other racial or ethnic groups. In its Shelley v. Kraemer ruling, the Court did not directly overturn Corrigan, it ruled that the racially based restrictive covenants are valid under the Fourteenth Amendment and could be voluntarily adhered to, but any legal action to enforce these covenants would make it a state action that would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is an important ruling as it emphasized the difference between private acts (not restricted) and state actions (limited) in relationship to the Fourteenth