Dread Scott – Pre Civil War. Even a slave that fled is considered property.
Civil War/Constitutional Amendments happened
How do the courts address race after these amendments?
Facially Discriminatory Statutes
Plessy v. Ferguson
163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Holding
The phrase “separate but equal” is not a violation of the equal protection clause.
Facts
Plessy was 7/8ths white and 1/8th black. The railroad had two cars, a white car and a black car (equal in quality). Plessy sat in the white car, was asked to remove and sued.
The interesting thing about this case is that neither the railroad company or black individuals liked this segregation (expensive/discriminatory). Thus, this was a case that was designed to see if the segregation was constitutional.
Analysis
The Fourteenth Amendment says “Equal.” Here, the segregation might have been separate, but this was equal. Additionally, the Constitution covers political equality, not social equality. To change the social equality, people should be elected to the legislature and make the changes. If there is a social desire for change, then the change would occur naturally.
The dissent argues that this is simply prejudice against a race which is unconstitutional. Essentially, he argues that this is a case that would be considered a Dread Scott kind of case.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I)
347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Holding
“Separate but equal” is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Facts
Children in several school districts were segregated by race in unfair educational conditions.
Analysis
Segregation has been shown to make black children feel inferior. The whole point of the 14th Amendment was to avoid individuals feeling inferior to another. Therefore, the rule of separate but equal cannot be allowed to continue.
This case is also an example of “the living Constitution” approach, rather than an originalism approach. The main reason for this is because those who passed the 14th Amendment did not consider the effect of segregation on school districts. Times had changed, and so interpretation had changed.
Additional Notes
Many cases built up before laying the groundwork for Brown. In other words, these cases were easy wins for equality that made it easier for the court to provide a positive ruling in Brown.
Brown is the most famous overturning of a case. Essentially, the petitioners convinced the court that “separate but equal” was not equal, overturning Plessy.
Brown targeted segregation within the school districts. Shortly after, several cases were brought to the court where segregation in other fields such as golf, buses, public beaches and bathhouses were also deemed unconstitutional.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown II)
349 U.S. 294 (1955).
Facts
Same fact pattern as Brown I.
Analysis
As far as remedies go, the Supreme Court remanded back to federal courts who would implement methods of desegregation, any burden was on the defendant to show that segregation was not occurring, etc. The court said that these solutions should be remedied with “all deliberate speed.”
Additional Notes
465-467, 480-482, 485-489, 494-501
504-509, 532-538, 549-555, SFFA
The large issue with this case is the contradictory statement of “all deliberate speed.” That is, take your time, as quickly as possible. Essentially, this opened the door to resistance of implementation.
So, what is the takeaway from Brown II? Minority students began to be desegregated, but the language allowed these minority students to stay segregated for longer.
Additionally, this presents questions about what Brown was all about. What it only about desegregation? Or what about forced integration? Well, this presents questions about busing (see Swann v. Charlotte-Mechlenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)) and other integration methods (Milliken v. Bradley, 481 U.S. 717 (1974) (no solution for white individuals fleeing integration efforts); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977) (can’t entice white individuals into the community)).
615-620, 774-777, 785-788, 801-805, 810-813
813-824, 637-641, 645-649, 654-661
673-675, Bostock (don’t have to read), 1009-1011, 1025-1026
1084-1086, 1075-1077, 1172-1175
1195-1198, 1223-1227, 1212-1215
1431, 1459-1465, 1500-1504
Korematsu v. United States
323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Question
Rule
Holding
Facts
Analysis
Additional Notes
Loving v. Virginia
Question
Rule
Holding
Facts
Analysis
Additional Notes
Affirmative Action
SFFA
Construction Workers
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
551 U.S. 701 (2007).
Question
Rule
Holding
Facts
Analysis
Additional Notes
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
