Constitutional Law Ch 14 Equal Protections

Front 1

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Back 1

Article IV provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” While the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it is the Article IV provision which affects interstate relationships.

Front 2

The equal protection clause

Back 2

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Front 3

equal opportunity

Back 3

The idea that government is expected to remove all barriers that allow members of all groups to participate politically

Front 4

equality of condition

Back 4

An expectation of government to reduce social or economic gaps between certain groups

Front 5

equality of result

Back 5

Expecting government to compensate for lingering effects of inequality to assure that all group end with equal outcomes

Front 6

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Back 6

The courts first analysis at the equal protection clause. It banned the monopoly of slaughterhouses, as it infringed on the right to not have land seized without due process.

Front 7

Strauder v. WV (1880)

Back 7

Invalidating the bar of blacks from jury duty

Front 8

Gulf, C&SR v. Ellis (1897)

Back 8

Invalidated railroads requirements of paying certain attorney fees

Front 9

Buchanan v. Warley (1917)

Back 9

Struck down racially segregated neighborhoods

Front 10

racially restrictive covenants

Back 10

Provision to promote residential segregation, this was struck down by Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Front 11

Corrigan v. Buckley (1926)

Back 11

A court case that allowed the restriction of property owners to sell to black

Front 12

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Back 12

A case that struck down Corrigan v. Buckley, it ended racially restrictive covenants

Front 13

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Back 13

Struck down the refused admission of black students

Front 14

Sipuel v. Univ. of OK (1948)

Back 14

Ruled blacks must be given a professional education

Front 15

McLaurin v. OK State Regents (1950)

Back 15

Invalidated segregation on campus activities

Front 16

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Back 16

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School.

Front 17

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Back 17

In a signed, unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Front 18

Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County (1964)

Back 18

Court ordered the re-opening of a school which closed to avoid Brown v. BOE

Front 19

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 19

Composed of Title II, which outlawed segregation in public places. Title VII which outlawed segregation in the workplace (salary,employment, promotions) (griggs)

Front 20

Green v. School Board (1968)

Back 20

Struck down "white" or "black" labels for schools

Front 21

Unitary school system

Back 21

Non-segregated school system

Front 22

Dual school system

Back 22

Segregated school system

Front 23

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE (1971)

Back 23

Upheld integration plan of busing many schools into one large school

Front 24

de jure

Back 24

by law

Front 25

de facto

Back 25

by fact, without government intervention

Front 26

Keyes v. School District (1973)

Back 26

Struck down administrative decisions that displayed racially identifiable schools (limited segregation)

Front 27

racially identifiable schools

Back 27

Schools by their mere population show segregation

Front 28

Columbus BOE v. Penick & Dayton BOE v Brinkman

Back 28

Erased de jure and de facto by massive legal integrations, based on rulings that promoted single school districts. However the schools felt they were not responsible for the segregation, which is why De facto and De jure were indistinguished in this case.

Front 29

BOE v. Dowell (1991)

Back 29

Federal supervision of schools was used as a temporary measure

Front 30

Resegragation

Back 30

Segregation occuring due to demographic changes

Front 31

Freeman v. Pitts (1992)

Back 31

a district court must only maintain control over a school system in the categories in which it has failed to abide by its court-ordered desegregation plan

Front 32

State action

Back 32

Conduct by government not a private entity

Front 33

Civil Rights Act 1866 Section 1982

Back 33

All citizens of all states shall enjoy the posession of real and personal property (Jones v. Mayer upheld this)

Front 34

Civil Rights Act 1866 Section 1981

Back 34

All citizens in all states may enjoy the right to contract, applied Runyon v. McCrary (1976)

Front 35

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Back 35

Invalidated the preference of males to equally qualified females

Front 36

Education Amendments 1972 Title IX & VI

Back 36

Title IX banned discrimination of sex in schools receiving federal funding, Title VI did the same for race.

Front 37

Title II

Back 37

Outlawed racial discrimination in public places; grounded in the 14th Amendment

Front 38

Daniel v. Paul (1969) & Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Assoc. (1973)

Back 38

Applications of Title II to private clubs due to funding from the state to maintain boats, pools, and golfcourses.

Front 39

Title VII

Back 39

Along with the 14th, it rules in the private sector and needs only to show effect as primie facie and not intent. Also applies to workplace with respect of salary, promotion, and hiring.

Front 40

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

Back 40

Bans classification that are fair in form but discriminitory in practice. (De jure versus De facto)

Front 41

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989)

Back 41

Modified Griggs, numbers are not enough, they must show legitimate business justifications

Front 42

Civil Rights Act of 1991

Back 42

SS 1981, it banned harassment in the workplace and allowed worker to sue for that harassment. After Paterson v. McClean Credit Union (1989)

Front 43

Title IX of Education Amendments 1972

Back 43

Prohibited sex-discrimination of funding for school activities provided by federal funds

Front 44

Grove City College v. Bell (1984)

Back 44

Applied Title IX even to schools that did not receive federal funding, but funding from different groups such as scholarships.

Front 45

Affirmative actions

Back 45

Policies designed to help certain minorities

Front 46

Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke (1978)

Back 46

Schools may accept students based on race but may not have a quota system.

Front 47

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Back 47

banned discrimination in any federally funded program

Front 48

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)

Back 48

Upheld AA for blacks in the workplace

Front 49

Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)

Back 49

Upheld AA for sexbased discrimination. Long as a quota system did not exist, sex is an accepted factor in basing a promotional or hiring opinion

Front 50

Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980)

Back 50

Upheld "set aside programs" for federal funding for local projects

Front 51

Equal Protection Methodology

Back 51

A.Statute is necessary for a compelling government interest
B.Statute is substantially related to an important government interest
C.Statute is rational for a permissible government interest.

Front 52

Constructionism (ists)

Back 52

Analyze documents literally, without extra value.
Former President Buchanan

Front 53

Metro Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1990)

Back 53

Expanded congressional powers for affirmative action. Expanded Fullilove (80')

Front 54

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)

Back 54

Struck down a STATE set-aside program because it consisted of a quota-system. The set-aside program was a construction job.

Front 55

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

Back 55

Overruled Metro broadcasting v. FCC, while the benefits of the program were trying to benefit the "disadvantaged" without specifying race, it must still pass strict scrutiny review.

Front 56

United States v. Foridce (1992)

Back 56

Even when schools have eliminated segregated practices, it cannot have a dual school system.

Front 57

Saenz v. Roe (1998)

Back 57

A case similar to Shapiro v. Thompson, in that funds from other states were being sent to other states depending on residency. It infringed on the right to travel.

Front 58

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Back 58

A hotel that bans black resident and receives its good through interstate commerce is to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Front 59

Katzenbach v. McClung

Back 59

A case similar to "heart of Atlanta", in that it may not bar blacks since their food (for a restaurant) was derived from interstate commerce.

Front 60

Civil Rights Act of 1875

Back 60

An attempt to further promote integration through the 13th and 14th amendment, however was struck down by the Civil Rights Cases (US v. Stanley) denying that power to congress.