law and politics 2

reasons he explores

extra-judicial-effects indirect effect extra-judicial-effects as an impetus for white American to change their racial attitudes "black revolution," inspiration for other demonstrations such as sit-ins

brown v board of education 2 APPELLEE

Board of Education of Topeka

brown v board of education 1 Topeka APPELLEE

Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al.

Bolling v. Sharpe reasoning

The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" protected by due process also guaranteed racial equality in public education in the District of Columbia. In a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington, DC, denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of DC, Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an Equal Protection Clause, while the Fourteenth Amendment. Lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation, Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington, DC, schools unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided this case on the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, which overshadowed it. Its most important legacy is the concept of reverse incorporation and the application of the same anti-discrimination principles to state and federal governments.

first section explored

The first area Rosenberg talks about is economic changes. During and after WWII, labor shortages were seen throughout the country. This created opportunities for African Americans in formerly segregated workplaces as white employers were forced to put their prejudices aside for the sake of economics. Not only were they getting into factory jobs, African Americans were also getting white collar jobs, such as craftsman, clerical, and technical positions.

brown v board of education 1 Topeka holding

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR BROWN ET AL. Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Rosenberg states his key question in this chapter in that based on the Dynamic Court view's extra-judicial influence claim, to which extent was congressional and presidential action a product of Court action? (109). four hypotheses that could propose societal changes in civil rights.

1.)Court action could have given civil rights prominence, therefore putting it on the political agenda. 2.) Court action could have influenced both the president and Congress to finally act. 3.) the Court could have influenced White Americans to think more in favor of civil rights where they in turn pressured their politicians to kindle change. 4.)the Court could have influenced Black Americans to act in favor of civil rights and that impacted White political elites, which either directly or indirectly influenced the general White population.

extra-judicial-effects court influenced other branches

Additionally, Rosenberg does not find any evidence of the extra-judicial-effects of the Court's decision in Brown from the legislative nor the executive branches. The introduction and passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964 as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act were supported because of electoral concerns or impending violence, rather than Court decisions.

brown v board of education 2 Facts of the case

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.

Bolling v. Sharpe RESPONDENT

C. Melvin Sharpe et al.

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, (1954) the 5 cases it was made up of

Delaware -- Belton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gebhart) Kansas -- Brown v. Board of Education. Washington, D.C. -- Bolling v. Sharp. South Carolina -- Briggs v. Elliot. Virginia -- Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

Bolling v. Sharpe Question

Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

brown v board of education 1 Topeka Question

Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

brown v board of education 1 Topeka LOWER COURT

Federal district court

brown v board of education 2 LOWER COURT

Federal district court

klarman overview

In Brown and Lawrence (and Goodridge), Michael J. Klarman examines and contrasts two major court cases in an attempt to determine whether Court decisions influence social reform and how Supreme Court Justices decide cases. Both cases examined by Klarman are historically significant; Brown v. Board of Education is used to track the influence the Courts had on the civil rights movement, while Lawrence v. Texas does the same for same-sex marriage.

brown v board of education 2 APPELLANT

Oliver Brown, Mrs. Richard Lawton, Mrs. Sadie Emmanuel et al.

brown v board of education 1 Topeka APPELLANT

Oliver Brown, Mrs. Richard Lawton, Mrs. Sadie Emmanuel, et al.

Klarman splits his essay into six parts.

Part I compares Brown and Lawrence and claims that judges are often uneasy in their decisions when using strong personal values with weak judicial reasoning. Part II uses the two court cases to examine the relationship between the Supreme Court and social reform movements. Part III Klarman attempts to show how the Court times decisions strategically so as to align with popular public opinion. Part IV looks at consequences that occurred because of the decisions made in Brown and Lawrence (and Goodridge), with focus on political backlash. Part V is Klarman's analysis from the perspective of Supreme Court Justices looking into the future, and Part VI is Klarman's conclusion. In his conclusion Klarman argues that Brown provides evidence that the Court's legitimacy comes, in part, from the Supreme Court's ability to "predict future trends in public opinion" (Klarman, 488).

other shortcomings that Rosenberg points out in ch 3

Rosenberg details constraints to the American judicial system in particular. -courts a lack specialties and expertise that are needed to implement reform. - time it takes between a suit and the final decree. (this delay affects the implementations of rulings) -The role of discretion and biases also play a part in undermining courts ( judges in lower courts can sometimes act on their own discretion) -cost of litigation is high

Chapter 3 of the hollow hope (Rosenberg) overall idea

Rosenberg discusses the constraints and barriers that existed to prevent judicial decisions from affecting social change in racial segregation. Rosenberg emphasizes the shift in the Court's efficiency from a Constrained Court view to a Dynamic Court view that took place in America in the 1960's-1970's.

Hallow hope ch 4 Rosenberg overview

Rosenberg evaluates the idea that Brown v. The Board of Education (1954) provided a foundation for the success of the civil rights movement. While examining this claim, Rosenberg incorporates the Dynamic Court view, suggesting that putting forth an issue to courts, like desegregation, can put pressure on other institutions to act. In order to confirm this claim, Rosenberg identifies, "necessary links in the causal chain," (Rosenberg 110) looking for evidence of the Court's effectiveness on the civil rights movement.

indirect effect making civil rights relevant

Rosenberg explores the idea that Brown might have had an indirect effect as the impetus for introducing this kind of legislation. However, there is more evidence that supports the fear of violence as the motivation for federal action rather than Court action. First, Rosenberg asserts that Courts may have given salience to civil rights because of increased press coverage and balanced treatment of blacks. However, there is no substantial evidence that the Court's action directly affected most Americans through the press as there is no indication of a significant increase in coverage in the years following Brown.

inspiration for other demonstrations such as sit-ins

Rosenberg finds little to no evidence that distinguishes the Court itself as inspiration for other demonstrations such as sit-ins, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Freedom Ride, nor the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. Additionally, there is no evidence supporting the idea that Brown was the source of inspiration for the founding of black groups like the SNCC, CORE, and SCLC. While there is some evidence that the Court's actions are credited to have had an effect on the increase in income available to the NAACP, there is not much evidence that Brown had anything more than a slight effect on the modest increase in membership. Moreover, Rosenberg concludes that the Dynamic Court view's claim that Brown was a major contribution to the civil rights movement is not substantiated by sufficient evidence.

"black revolution,"

Rosenberg further examines the claim that Brown ignited a "black revolution," providing a new image and encouragement to act. But the black community's reaction to Brown was muted rather than supportive or celebratory. The only jump in demonstrations in the years following Brown was in 1956, due to Montgomery, and later on in the 1960's. Such a pattern does not support the claim that the Court played a major role in sparking the movement.

extra-judicial-effects as an impetus for white American to change their racial attitudes

Rosenberg goes on to examine how the Court may have had extra-judicial-effects as an impetus for white American to change their racial attitudes. However, as many Americans did not follow Supreme Court decisions nor understand its constitutional role, there is a lack of evidence supporting the Court's influence on the public opinion of Americans following Brown.

brown v board of education 1 Topeka reasoning

Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal. violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children. Warren based much of his opinion on information from social science studies rather than court precedent. The decision also used language that was relatively accessible to non-lawyers because Warren felt it was necessary for all Americans to understand its logic.

Bolling v. Sharpe PETITIONER

Spotswood Thomas Bolling et al.

brown v board of education 2 reasoning

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."

Bolling v. Sharpe Facts of the case

The D.C. Board of Education denied a petition by a group of parents in Anacostia to racially integrate John Phillip Sousa Junior High School. The following year, in 1950, the parents sought admission to the all-white school for 11 African-American children. When the request was again denied by the Board, a Howard University law professor brought a lawsuit. The claim was dismissed by the trial court.

the contrasting opinion of rosenberg's in ch3

The contrasting opinion is the Dynamic Court view, which argues that the Constrained Court view does not take into account the fact that the court's power has the ability to go against popular opinion, and that the courts can make social change.

the constraints of the courts Rosenberg pointed out in ch

The first constraint implemented during this time period is the need for precedent to enact a major change in society such as desegregation. Another challenge that the courts faced was the lack of judicial independence that the courts needed to enact social change. . Part of this constraint that the courts faced was the opposing forces of executive and state political leaders. The third constraint is the need for the support of political elites.

the fourth area

The fourth area was the changing society of US. Civil rights were gaining a lot of attention and support, bringing about many marches and demonstrations. It also provided a sense of hope among black citizens, who showed a large increase in the thought that their sons would have a better life in the future from 1942 to 1947. A larger media spread messages of civil rights and the brutality of oppression across the US to a receptive audience.

second area explored

The second area is electoral changes. When the blacks moved north and west, they moved primarily into key electoral states like NY, CA, PA, IL, MI, NJ, and OH. These states held over 70% of the electoral votes needed to become president, so getting the black vote on your side was necessary in order to win. Both Truman and Eisenhower won with the help of the black vote by promising and enacting civil rights acts and executive orders. This voting block was subject to change parties if the promise of civil rights was good enough.

the third area

The third area is the international demands of the Cold War. The fight against Communism was a very pressing matter during this time period and it was hypocritical of the US to call itself the defender of the free world when its people weren't free. Foreign diplomats were regularly shown the racial bias in DC. The UN was appealed to by several groups asking for relief from segregation, including the NAACP. The Soviet Union used this as propaganda against the US and frequently reported on events of racial oppression.

brown v board of education 1 Topeka Facts of the case

This case was the consolidation of cases arising in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington D.C. relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief in the lower courts based on Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that racially segregated public facilities were legal so long as the facilities for blacks and whites were equal. (This was known as the "separate but equal" doctrine.)

chapter 5 of the hollow hope

This chapter starts with an explicit statement expressing Rosenberg's belief that the courts at all levels are not the cause of any social change. This argument is split up into four different areas that prove that social change was happening regardless of the courts' decisions. Although the courts didn't impede social change, they merely went the flow of social change and Rosenberg suggests that their decisions didn't affect whether or not social change would occur.

time problem

Time will decipher what laws can and will be passed. The move time given within a court decision, the greater chance of the allowance of other intruding of the views of the Court and making it more difficult to establish court decisions across the country, but specifically in the South.

Bolling v. Sharpe holding

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR BOLLING The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" protected by due process also guaranteed racial equality in public education in the District of Columbia

brown v board of education 2 holding

UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR BROWN ET AL. The Brown (1) decision shall be implemented "with all deliberate speed"

Bolling v. Sharpe LOWER COURT

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

brown v board of education 2 Question

What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?