educ240 exam 3

New Jersey v. TLO

-1985 -Regan area: fixing schools, brining god and discipline back -9th grade girls caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom -Still allowed to smoke in the designated smoking area -Taken to principle -One admits to it and one says no i don't even smoke -Principal takes purse and looks and sees Marlboros, finds rolling papers, find money, index cards with names and money -Gets charged with drug offenses -Motion to suppress, 4th amendment rights were violated -Court has to decide does 4th amendment apply to students -Yes it does apply to students in the school -Schools claim they are acting with parental authority, but if they are acting loco parentis than they are allowed to search -It is difficult to understand why they are acting like parents -Benefit of compulsonary and have a code of conduct -The Juvenile Court denied T.L.O.'s motion to suppress (keep out) her confession and the evidence from the search. Her lawyer argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated but the court sided with the school. -The state of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, ruled that New Jersey and the school had met a "reasonableness" standard for conducting such searches at school. It just has to be reasonable -***MONEY QUOTE*** "Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a 2 folded...... justified, actually conducted was reasonable related to circumstances..." -Lower the bar so they don't have to know about probable cause -The high court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school. -Students have 4th amendment rights But education officials can search if they have a reasonable reason against laws and school rules. -Search itself is reasonable and has a cause and rules of nature -Generally favorable to education officials, almost allows searches in any scenario -Education officials doing search is okay not with student resource officer or police officer -Most important of these cases because it has the most conduct, sets the bar

Safford v. Redding

-2009 -Shows limit of TLO -Middle school suspected of having non-prescription painkillers like advil -13 year old confronted by principal that she is hanging out pills -Sends her down to nurses office.. Stripped down to bra and underwear -She is horrified, transferred school -***The very fact of SAvannah pulling her underwear .... Leave searches to outside clothing*** -The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision, that Redding's fourth amendment rights were violated, and that the search of her underwear was not warranted based on a reasonable suspicion. -The court, however, did not find the school administrators liable for the search, because the law regarding searching of students was not specific enough. -They said that the extent to which they were allowed to search students was not clearly established. -Your underwear is the one place you can't look

Riley v. California

-2014 -There are two cases mentioned and referred to in the opinion of this case. Riley v California and then another case with a man named Brima Wurie. Riley was stopped for a traffic violation (expired registration on his license plates) and it was then realized that he was also suspended from driving. He was arrested and the police took his cell phone. The police and detectives then searched his phone and found things that referenced different gangs. They then further searched and found a photo of Riley in front of a car that was involved in a shooting that they were investigating and linked Riley to that shooting (longer sentence for Riley). The trial court denied the motion to suppress and his conviction was affirmed. Shortly before this case was brought to court, the SC in CA had ruled in People v Diaz that the police could search the phone, but there was controversy over the topic in the state and gov. Brima was observed making an suspicious 'deal', and the police approached him. Found two cell phones in his possession. He was arrested and the police searched his phone as well which led them to his apartment. The police went to his apartment, searched it, and found drugs, guns, money, etc. He fought against this being used as evidence against him because he argued that it was found in a search of his apartment which the police would not have gone to had they not searched his phone, which he believed was an unconstitutional search of his phone. The Supreme Court in these cases looked at the 4th amendment which talks about searches. They discuss what is "reasonable" and reference the case of USA v Robinson. They discuss how the "search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones". The court discusses the storage capacity of phones, the intimate details on them, and state that they believe that a cell phone (esp. smartphone) is different than searching one or two personal items. The SC concludes that a warrant is needed to search a cell phone and that these cases failed the warrantless search test. 4TH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO CELL PHONES ALSO Have to have a warrant to seize phone and a reason to look through someone's phone

4th Amendment cases

-guarantees the rights of people to be secured against searches and seizures without probable cause, invading their privacy, warrants, oaths or affirmations. -Remedy is exclusion of evidence. Has to be a state act, reasonable expectation of privacy. Searches: can be pat down, belongings, test of blood, breath, urine, DNA -Specific level of suspicion towards individual

Plessy v. Ferguson

1896 ⅞ black in Louisiana Cars must be equal and separate Railroad conductors seat people according to race Black allowed to ride in white car if they were a babysitter to a white child Plessy wants to sit in white section Gets jailed ON TRAIN Violates the 13th amendment Court says that this is far from slavery Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy - who was seven-eighths Caucasian - agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he was refused and arrested. At trial, Plessy's lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted. In a 7-1 decision for Ferguson: The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. The Court noted that there was not a meaningful difference in quality between the white and black railway cars. In short, segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination. *****In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights. ******COLOR BLIND IDEA****** everybody knows that they are doing this so blacks and whites are separated. White race deems itself as being the dominant race Stamps the colored race with inferiority The constitution applies because it is a social problem: one of the most republican cases Plessy remains good law all the way until Brown Fallback, judicial endorsement of racial discrimination that is a daily reality in the US Separate but equal: good enough The black school has a teacher and school, but it's not the nicest Decision is noted for their ignorance towards segregation

Gong Lum v. Rice

1927 Written by Harlan who wrote previous dissent Back in louisiana Chinese family Martha Lum is an american citizen student Family attended white church and everything Tries to go to white school and is kicked out first day Hires lawyer who goes to bat for them Can't send her to black school because she will suffer the same harm that white students face when coming into contact with black people Court comes back and says you are not white enough; can go to colored school or private school Are chinese students able to go to white school? Separate but equal? Staredises Latent term: prior will be upheld EXTENSION OF PLESSY Who is deciding who is white? The superindendidnet, government official, wouldn't be comfortable with this today

Brown v. Board of Education

1954 Delaware ties Kansas Brown is the plaintiff student she wanted to attend a segregated school Turned away, brief meeting with principal and told to get lost Told to go to black school where she would have to walk through railroad Plessy is in effect: separate but equal : in Kansas they say that they are equal Kansas narrows the issue to if seperate is equal and test the document "Moving target" everyone has a seperate set up In Delaware we say it violates Biggest Opinion that the Supreme Court has done: took decades to play out It is not equal and deprived of "equal" of the law Nothing you can add to black and white school Can't make comparisons on tangible factors, must look to the effect of segregation on education Whether the impact of deprived students is equal Notable footnote Brown ends separate but equal in public schools Gets special credit because it narrows it For Plessy: separate and equal has no place in the field of public education

Brown II

1955 After its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I), which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced constitutional principle. The cases stemmed from many different regions of the United States with distinctive conditions and problems. ***The Brown I decision shall be implemented "with all deliberate speed." The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were ordered to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed." Just because you don't agree doesn't matter ***all deliberate speed*** Everyone was left wondering Attempt to guide desegregation and in schools Doesn't really settle how it will be implemented just gives suggestion Becomes battle ground for interpreting Brown President says: these southerners don't want their daughters to sit next to big black butts Great mistake: detonated a major issue Clammed up and stayed quiet on the issue for the next 13 years

Kent v. United States

1966 Following an interrogation by police for involvement in robbery and rape incidents, jurisdiction over Kent's case was waived by the judge presiding over the juvenile court after he admitted to some involvement in the crimes. As a result, he was tried as an adult without further investigation and sentenced to 30-90 years in prison by a jury in district court. Kent moved to dismiss the indictment, but the appeals court upheld the decision; even though they noted that juvenile court provided no reason for the waiver. However, the Supreme Court's majority opinion (led by Justice Fortas) went against the waiver, citing the fact that there was an absence of proper investigation by the juvenile court. But since Kent was 21 at the time of the indictment, juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over his case. Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that ordered that the conviction be vacated if the waiver was improper or sustained if it was proper. Justice Stewart's dissent stated that he would rather vacate the judgement and remand the case for consideration based on the two decisions of the appeals court. Court is saying juveniles have due process rights 16 year old arrested for burglary and rape He is supposed to be handled "civilly" and not "punishment" Court does nothing Juvenile should have access to a hearing

In re Gault

1967 The In re Gault court case occurred in 1967 when a fifteen year old boy, Gerald "Jerry" Gault, got arrested for making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor. The call included lewd (crude and offensive remarks in a sexual way), irritatingly offensive, adolescent, and sex variety remarks. Gerald and his friend were taken to the Children's detention home. Gerald's parents weren't home at the time of the arrest and the arresting officer left no notice that the two boys got arrested. At the hearing the next day, the accuser of the crime was not present, no one was sworn in, there was no cross-examination, and no one created a transcript or recording of the case. The question of whether the procedures used to commit Gerald were constitutionally legitimate under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment was brought to the Supreme Court. The due process clause is the guarantee to the right of fair procedures and the right to fair trial by jury. The requirements for this clause is the adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross- examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self incrimination. Gerald did not believe he was given a fair trial and fair procedures during that trial. The ruling of the court stated that the procedures did not met any requirements and that the 14th amendment applies to juvenile defendants as well as to adult defendants. In juvenile for 6 years for prank call, if he was an adult he would have gotten like 2 months Backbone to all the rights in the constitution

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County

1968 Most of these deal with segregation occurring within a district In VA has black and white schools: -Brown says families can choose what schools you go to -Sounds like a good idea; not forcing anyone to go to any school -After about 3 years there are no white kids at black school and white school is only 15% black No longer separate: but this isn't what Brown has in mind Step in right direction but not enough Supreme court put on school district to put on families and students:"You figure it out" Embraces the status quo; former southern state, letting it linger: no white kids going to black school Court says its not black and white schools just schools District should do whatever so that discrimination will be eliminated root and branch**** Requires affirmative action **** You can't just sit on your hands; you need to act and take steps Racial context: giving preference to whoever the minority group and some benefit, takes into account minority race

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

1971 Taking action one part or example of Green 9-0 decision They say go to whatever school you are closest to but its not working because people live in city = mostly black Geographic concentration of the races Integration by bussing kids to school Because you can't tell them to move Bus city kids out to white school Creates GIANT controversy Fueled by homeowners that say they bought their houses for the good school =Don't want their kids going to the city In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district court's' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that: 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools. Not enough to overcome segregation Make the square into a rectangle and get more integration and make more districts Whatever it takes to get it done: applies largely in the north Brown tells us students can't be assigned schools by race but now we are doing that . How are we going to meet our goals? Turns out to be beginning of end: -Green orders affirmative action to integrate -Swann enforces one way to integrate -Bussing is INTRADISTRICT moving white and black students around 1 district -Victory for integration and desegregation but the beginning of the end for bussing

San Antonio v. Rodriguez

1973 Mexican-American parents of the children who attend schools in the Edgewood Independent School District, with Rodriguez as the representative sued the San Antonio School District for the disparity in school funding in the area. In the lawsuit, they stated that the "Texas method of school financing violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution." The lawsuit alleged that education was a fundamental right and that wealth-based discrimination involving education, created in the poor, or those of lesser wealth, a constitutionally suspect class, who were to be protected from the discrimination. Texas, at the time, had a long history of financial inequity. Rodriguez was able to show that the wealthier and primarily white areas were able to contribute more money per child to their school district as opposed to Edgewood, which was a primarily poor, minority area. Texas' public education finance system did NOT violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Powell led the narrow majority in deciding that the right to be educated was neither 'explicitly or implicitly' found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. It was therefore, not anywhere protected by the Constitution. He also found that Texas had not created a suspect class related to poverty. The two findings allowed the state to continue its school financing plan as long as it was "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Dissent: Marshall: argued that in cases involving unenumerated rights, the Court's "task... should be to determine the extent to which constitutionally guaranteed rights are dependent on interests not mentioned in the Constitution," and "[a]s the nexus between the specific constitutional guarantee and the non constitutional interest draws closer, the non constitutional interest becomes more fundamental and the degree of judicial scrutiny applied when the interest is infringed on a discriminatory basis must be adjusted accordingly." Brennan: wrote an article in the Harvard Law Review urging lawyers and litigants to turn to their State Supreme Courts — rather than the U.S. Supreme Court — to litigate their constitutional claims, as the conservative Burger Court would likely be unreceptive to claims made by racial minorities, the poor, or other "politically powerless groups whose members have historically been subjected to purposeful discrimination." Since Brennan's article was published, a number of State Supreme Courts have held that substantially unequal public school funding violates their State Constitutions.

Lau v. Nichols

1974 Chinese students in San Fran schools Some are given chinese education others are not English is required to graduation Students who don't understand need to because student needs the core of education of english School cannot discriminate bc of funding and tells school district to figure it out In 1971, the San Francisco, California school system was integrated. As a result, the San Francisco school system absorbed over 2,856 students of Chinese ancestry who were not proficient in English. Of these students, the school system only provided about 1,000 with supplemental English language courses. Classes were taught exclusively in English. Lau and other students of Chinese dissent who did not speak English and received no supplemental English courses brought a class action suit against the officials in the San Francisco Unified School District. The students claimed that the failure to provide supplemental English classes constituted an unequal educational opportunity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court denied relief, holding that the policies of the school system did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment or the Civil Rights Act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and a hearing en banc was denied. The students appealed the appellate court's decision. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for a unanimous court. The Court determined that the school system's failure to provide supplemental English language instruction to students of Chinese ancestry who spoke no English constituted a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act because it deprived those students of an opportunity to participate in the public education program.

Milliken v. Bradley

1974 Court ruled that an inter-district desegregation plan in the city of Detroit was impermissible and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The District Court ordered remedial education programs be instituted within the Detroit school district, and that the State of Michigan would bear half the costs of the remedial programs. The state of Michigan challenged the District Court order, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Detroit where there has never been law segregation:DONUT DRAWING Center of donut is detroit = black outside = white Inside is where the problem is because they are failing to integrate Bringing kids from center to outside and vice versa CROSSING DISTRICT LINES Gotta start moving kids between the two In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the District Court order, emphasizing "equitable principles" in the construction of desegregation plans set forth in Brown v. Board of Education (1955) _. The Court relied on _United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education in that "matters other than pupil assignment must on occasion be addressed by federal courts to eliminate the effects of prior segregation" and numerous lower court decisions providing for remedial programs. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asserted that the District Court order "does no more than" what was accepted in Ex Parte Young. The burden to eliminate the effects of segregation rested on state officials, consistent with Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education. Therefore, the District Court's order did not violate the Eleventh Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall authored a concurring opinion. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. concurred in the judgment. You gotta play with the hand you're dealt Unless there is evidence that the outside is causing detroit problems or vice versa if its caused by detroit in detroit then detroit needs to find the solution Blow to the components of segregation and bussing Provides protection to the states *** Prohibits INTER or CROSS DISTRICT

Goss v. Lopez

1975 Students get suspended and what rights do students have Ohio Constitution; state NOT federal says there is a right to education Students have a property of interest for learning 9 students were suspended for 10 days. These 9 students' rights were infringed upon because they were not offered the same opportunity as expelled students to appeal to the Board of Education. These students argued that they have property interests in public education that require the school properly investigate the suspension and give the students a chance to hold a hearing. They also stated that the suspensions would affect their everyday school lives afterwards. In the eyes of their fellow students and teachers their reputations have been diminished. The potential of having a suspension on record also affects how future colleges or employers view their applications. The Court ruled that these appellees were denied due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Without a hearing within reasonable time of the suspension, the suspension is unconstitutional. They stated that students have property and liberty interests that demand constitutional protection and proper procedures. The Court said that parents must be informed within 24 hours, the hearing must be done within 72 hours and that students have the right to speak on their behalf to explain their side of the story. Both property and freedom under due process protection Schools must give student oral or written suspension and evidence Described as informal give and take of student and teacher If I am going to kick you out of class you should be able to know why Don't get witnesses, call witnesses Powell Dissent: Wants power with local school officials because he was one Intrudes on teacher and student relationship Teacher has many roles , should be free to discipline Says suspension isn't that bad and detrimental to students Win for students; bare minimum; provide reason for why

Ingraham v. Wright

1977 James Ingraham, 14 years old You are allowed to hit students All Black junior high school Students up on stage and given 5 licks each with wooden paddle He says no, 2 adults come up hold him down and beat him 20 time Hematoma, severely injured, misses 2 weeks of school, sues school district 48 states allow corporal punishment His parents sued the school for cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment) and right to due process (14th amendment) Decision : -Corporal punishment in public schools does NOT violate constitutional rights. -8th and 14th amendment were NOT violated. -8th amendment does not prevent corporal punishment in schools. (cruel and unusual punishment as only referring to criminals). -Claim that procedural due process was satisfied by florida law (Florida recognized students' common law right to be free from excessive corporal punishment in school, mandating that teachers and administrators exercise prudence and restraint in administering physical punishment . -Unreasonable or excessive punishment could result in criminal or civil liability for the responsible teacher or administrator.) 8th amendment: prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment 14th due process Powell says its not technically punishment Students can get beat at school

Plyler v. Doe

1982 This case is about a revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 that allowed the state to withhold funds from local school districts for educating children of illegal aliens. The Supreme Court that illegal aliens and their children, "are people "in any ordinary sense of the term"" and are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was of a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down Won 1,000 dollars for unauthorized immigrants Not allowed in schools, held in detention centers Declare a burden by school officials Only make up 24/1600 students Families sue Court says that unauthorized immigrants are people too One of the most important of this time

Martinez v. Bynum

1983 8-1 decision Student who is US students and parents reside in Mexico Moves in w sister in Texas Texas law prohibits free education to student whose parents/ guardians live outside the US Court upholds Texas law A Texas law permitted public school districts to deny tuition-free admission to minors living apart from their parents if their primary purpose of living in the district was to attend school free of charge. Roberto Morales left his family in Mexico to live with his sister, Oralia Martinez, in Texas. When the school district denied Morales' application for free admission, Martinez challenged the law in court. No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the Constitution permitted states to restrict eligibility for tuition-free education to bona-fide residents. The Court found that the Texas requirement was "far more generous" than traditional residency requirements, since it extended benefits to many children even if they did not intend to remain in a school district indefinitely. No violation of the Equal Protection Clause was found.

Vernonia v. Acton

1995 Testing student athletes to sign a waiver saying they will condone to drug testing Acton is a 7th grader who him and parents refuse to sign An Oregon public school district implemented a policy under which all students wishing to participate in interscholastic athletics had to sign a form consenting to a urinalysis drug test and had to obtain their parents' written consent to the testing, athletes were tested at the beginning of the season for their sport, and random testing of 10 percent of the athletes was done weekly during the season. The district decided on this policy after observing an increase in student drug use. A 7th grade student was denied to play sports in school because him and his parents did not consent to the drug testing. The family filed a suit claiming the policy violated the 4th Amendment. It was held that the drug testing policy did not violate the student's 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches where the District Court had found that student drug problems in the school district, particularly with respect to students involved in interscholastic athletics, were severe enough to demonstrate a need to address such problems because the policy was reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account the decreased expectation of privacy with regard to students, particularly student athletes, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search. Student athletes are susceptible to testing, less reasonable expectation, Student shouldn't have to give up that private information Reasonable and constitutional policy

BOE Pottawatomie v. Earls

2002 Earls is an offshoot of Acton Opens door wider to any student involved in extracurricular activities Earls is an honor student No drug problem in the school The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (SADTP) was adopted by Tecumseh a high school. The policy required all middle school and high school students that participate in any extracurricular school activities submit to drug testing (urinalysis). School's main focus was the sports teams. Two high school students and their parents brought the case to court stating violation of their 4th amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure. Is the SADTP which requires all students who participate in competing extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing, consistent with the 4th amendment? Yes. (5-4) SATDP reasonably serves the school districts important interest in detection and prevention of illicit drug use among its students is constitutional. Participation in extracurricular activities diminishes a students expected right to privacy and the process of urinalysis is minimally intrusive. Main focus was prevention and detection. Enough evidence of drug issues at school Can't test everybody but can test almost anyone

Roper v. Simmons

2005 Christopher Simmons was a 17-year-old boy that planned and committed murder against a Shirley Crook. He conspired with his friend to carry out the murder. After Shirley Crook was found dead, police were motioned that it was indeed Simmons who was responsible. Simmons was bragging about the act to his other friends. The police arrested Simmons while at his high school. During his interrogation, he admitted to the crime and even reenacted how it unfolded which would be used in court. The State charged Simmons with burglary, kidnapping, stealing, and murder in the first degree. It is important to note that Simmons who was 17, was tried as an adult because he was outside of juvenile jurisdiction. The jury found him guilty and they wanted the death penalty. Simmons counsel wanted the jury to think about his age but they still decided for it. Simmons found new counsel who said that Simmons age would suggest the death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment, which is stated in the Eighth Amendment. Simmon's counsel claimed this is similar to the Atkins v. Virginia decision where the mentally disabled cannot be sentenced to the death penalty. Eventually, Simmons case made it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that executing minors is a cruel and unusual punishment. To make their decision they took into account that many state legislatures feel as though the death penalty for minors is a disproportionate punishment.

Parents Involved

2007 4 in favor 4 empossed 1 in middle: Justice Kennedy decision becomes the position In seattle, districts have voluntarily decided to maximize integration by individually classifying every student to a school Here are your school options and rank your first 10 choices If the school is overcrowded they do a tiebreaker vote: Siblings in school? Race to see the balance that school needs to achieve Every student is to be of a particular race 60:40 racial split This approach begins immediate conflict with the "color blind" approach This case is a debate over Brown Way to stop discrimination on basis of race? Is to stop discrimination on basis of race! Efforts to continue we are smart enough to recognize this Need to look at reason: are we segregating or integrating Cant compare the sixties to 2007 *****Kennedy : these programs are unconstitutional but it's not always unconstitutional to consider race Creeped out by the government deciding what race you are ****Opposing individual racial classification doesn't require.... Lead to constitutional color blindness The more individual the more offensive

Fisher v. University of Texas

2016 White female applies for admission but denied Guaranteed admission if you graduate in 10% of class in high school 75% get in on this 25% other attributions and RACE Says race isn't constitutional and she would have gotten in if her skin was black or if she was a different race Court says there is no going against Equal Protection Clause Can't add points for not being white Narrowly tired he University of Texas' plan is also narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest because there are no other available and workable alternatives for doing so. ****FISHER: diversity is a compelling interest Not a quota of minority student University of Texas has good goals Preparation of student Cultivation of student leaders in the eyes of the citizens Academic environment Exposure to different cultures HOW DO YOU MEASURE THIS ? Court says doesn't matter University has given reasonable explanation for these goals Must continually explain policy and diversity on campus DIVERSITY IS A LEGITIMATE UNIVERSITY ATTRIBUTION

Civil Rights Act of 1964

JFK advocates for this Legislation 73:27 after 60 days of filibuster Changed and imposed integration members: -Voting -Did Not go against Jim Crow -Abolished discrimination in government owned facilities, hotels, public education -FORCED DESEGREGATION -US Department of Government to take action

DUE PROCESS CASES

comes out of 14th amendment, nor shall any state take away freedom, liberty from citizen, all government must obey the law, fair procedures to everyone, things such as unbias tribunal, life, liberty, property

"short-term" suspension v "long-term" suspension.

short term: 10 days or less long term: anything longer than 10 days ***The amount of due process required for a short-term suspension is minimal. ***The longer the suspension, the more due process that is typically required.