Civil Rights

De Facto v. De Jure segregation

The difference between de facto segregation (segregation that existed because of the voluntary associations and neighborhoods) and de jure segregation (segregation that existed because of local laws that mandated the segregation) became important distinctions for court-mandated remedial purposes.

Equality of Opportunity

poses that everyone should have the same chance or opportunity

White Primary

was a tactic Southern whites used in which the Democratic Party was declared a private organization that could exclude whomever it pleased. State party rules or state laws that excluded blacks from the Democratic primary virtually disenfranchised all blacks (and only blacks) by keeping them out of the election that generally determined who would hold office in a state that was dominated by the Democratic Party. In 1944, the white primary was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Allwright

Voting Rights Act of 1965

was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 77-19 vote on May 26, 1965. After debating the bill for more than a month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 333-85 on July 9. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965, with Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders present at the ceremony. The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered to vote, and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections.

Poll Tax

were instituted in seven southern states following Reconstruction. _____ was a flat fee required before voting; it was often levied as high as $200 per person. The U.S. Congress eventually came to view the financial qualification as an impediment to individuals' voting rights. A constitutional amendment was necessary to abolish poll taxes, as the poll tax had previously withstood constitutional challenges in the courts. On January 23, 1964, the United States ratified the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting any poll tax in elections for federal officials

Affirmative Action

A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the basis of, at the very least, race, creed, color, and national origin. The Court's interpretation of the Constitution has influenced the debate on affirmative action: some justices argue that affirmative action is constitutional, holding that the Constitution only forbids racial classifications designed to harm minorities. Other justices disagree, arguing that affirmative action is unconstitutional because it creates race-based and gender-based classifications, benefitting certain genders and race groups over others.

Regents of University of California v. Bakke

Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. Question Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? Answer No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Craig v. Boren

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and Carolyn Whitener, a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory. Question Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women? Answer Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender classifications. The Court held that the statistics relied on by the state of Oklahoma were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the law and the maintenance of traffic safety. Generalities about the drinking habits of aggregate groups did not suffice. The Court also found that the Twenty-first Amendment did not alter the application of the Equal Protection Clause in the case. In striking down the Oklahoma law, the Court established a new standard for review in gender discrimination cases. More demanding than the lowest standard for review -- rational basis -- but less demanding than the highest standard -- strict scrutiny, the majority articulated an in-between standard -- intermediate scrutiny

Brown v. Board of Education

Discrimation in Schools. 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.) Question Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the FourteenthAmendment? Answer 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.

14th Amendment

Establishes citizenship Declares that no state shall make or enforce a law that would abridge privileges or immunities to any citizen in that state that others (white people) hold. Nor shall they deprive a person of life liberty or property without due process (5th amendment) Nor deny any person equal protection of the laws - FIRST TIME WE SEE THIS LANGUAGE

Discrimination

Governmental and private; The Constitution provides protection against civil rights violations stemming from the government (including officials and employees), but not private individuals or organizations. However, governments can write laws that prohibit private individuals and organizations from infringing on civil rights. An example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited private businesses and organizations from discriminating in hiring decisions based on inherent characteristics of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.

Smith v. Allwright

In 1923, the Texas Democratic Party required all voters in its primary to be white based on a state law authorizing the party to establish its own internal rules. Lonnie E. Smith, a black voter in Harris County, Texas, sued county election official S. S. Allwright for the right to vote in the primary. Question Did denying blacks the right to vote in primary elections violate the Constitution? Answer In 1944, the white primary was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Allwright. Notice how long it took for a decision in this case.

Grutter v. Bollinger

In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota. Question Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Answer No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Question Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment? Answer The supreme court ruled 7-2 that the commission violated baker Jack Phillips' rights under the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression. The court did not address the wider principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people, saying this "must await further elaboration". Writing for the majority, justice Anthony Kennedy said the CCRC showed "hostility" to Phillips' religious beliefs in ordering him to undergo anti-discrimination training. "The laws and the constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights," Kennedy wrote, "but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."The decision focused narrowly on the handling of Phillips' case, however, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. A lingering questions existed: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits? In June 1963, President John Kennedy asked Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill, induced by massive resistance to desegregation and the murder of Medgar Evers. After Kennedy's assassination in November, President Lyndon Johnson pressed hard to secure the bill's passage the following year. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's benchmark civil rights legislation.

Literacy Test with Grandfather Clause exception

In the post-Civil War era there were many uneducated African Americans. _______ were used to help exclude them from the polls. Grandfather clauses were enacted by seven Southern states between 1895 and 1910. These laws provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867 would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because former slaves had not been granted the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, these clauses effectively excluded blacks from the vote as to do so would require them to pay poll tax or pass literacy test. This all to say that voting for African Americans became all but impossible in some states. In 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared the grandfather clause unconstitutional because it violated equal voting rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (sex discrimination)

Remind that it solidified that discrimination based on sex was unconstitutional

13th Amendment

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. RIGHT TO VOTE. Again Congress has power to enforce this with legislation

Bolling v. Sharpe

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. Question Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Answer 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. The idea being that if segregation is unconstitutional for states, then it is unconstitutional also for the federal district of Washington D.C. The U.S. Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress, and the district is therefore not a part of any U.S. state.

Reed v. Reed (Equal Protection Clause)

The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court. Question Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Answer In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."

Gratz v. Bollinger

The University of Michigan's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) considers a number of factors in its evaluative process, such as high school grades, standardized test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, geography, and leadership. The OUA also considers race and admits virtually every qualified applicant from certain groups determined to be "underrepresented minorities." Beginning in 1998, the OUA used a point system in which students were awarded an additional 20 points for being a member of an underrepresented minority, and beginning in 1999, the University established an Admissions Review Committee to provide an additional level of consideration. In 1995, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher both applied for admission to the University of Michigan' College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) as residents of the state of Michigan. Both are of Caucasian descent. Both were denied admission and told that, although they were qualified, they were not competitive enough applicants to be admitted on first review. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a class action suit against the University, the LSA, Lee Bollinger, and James Duderstadt. They argued that the admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court held that the respondents had shown that a racially and ethnically diverse student body produced significant academic benefits but that the admission policies of 1995-1998 were problematic because they amounted to "holding seats" for certain minority groups. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment for the petitioners with respect to the admissions policies for 1995-1998 and for the respondents with respect to the policy that began in 1999. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard this case the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger, a similar case, and upheld the University's admission policies in that case. The petitioners in this case then asked the Court to grant certiorari, despite the lack of opinion from the lower court, to resolve the issue. Question Did the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Answer Yes. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that the OUA's policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of "underrepresented minority" status, it was not narrowly tailored in the manner required by previous jurisprudence on the issue.

Strict Scrutiny

The courts do not consider the characteristic of sex to be a suspect classification and therefore laws that allow differential treatment of women and men do not need to pass the _________. Instead the courts apply the heightened ___________ also known as the ________ in sex based discrimination cases, which requires the government show that the sex based differential treatment is substantially related to an important public interest for which the government is responsible. The ________ is a weaker test making it easier for the government to justify sex based discrimination than discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnic origin. An example is that women today in the military do not have the same opportunities in combat roles and hence combat related benefits as military men do.

Rational Basis

The weakest test the courts use when determining if a law allowing discriminatory treatment is legal is the ___________. Using this test, courts require governments to show the differential treatment is a _______ mean to achieve a legitimate public interest for which the government is responsible. Many states allow age based discrimination to be legal applying the ordinary scrutiny test. Some examples include the minimum age to purchase alcohol, the establishment of a retirement age, and the minimum age to marry

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans. The government sought to enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under Title II. Question Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving places of public accommodation of the right to choose their own customers? Answer The Commerce Clause extends the anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hotels that host travelers from outside the state. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clark, the Court held the government could enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause. Since the motel was positioned near Interstates 75 and 85 and received most of its business from outside Georgia, this showed that it had an impact on interstate commerce, which is all that is needed to justify Congress in exercising the Commerce Clause power

Suspect Classification

Today the courts use three tests to determine when unequal treatment is legal. Which test the court uses depends on the inherent characteristic that is the basis for differential treatment. For example, court's view race, ethnic origin and religion to be suspect classifications, meaning that judges will assume that the laws treating individuals differently because of these characteristics are unconstitutional and violate the equal protection clauses.

Equality of Result

equality exists not just if opportunity is equal but if results are also equal

Racial Gerrymandering

is a political practice that dilutes the voting power of racial minorities as a method of voter suppression. _________ is conducted to provide an unfair advantage to a particular candidate or party. There are two methods used in gerrymandering, colloquially referred to as 'cracking' and 'packing.' Cracking refers to the process of splitting up voters into disparate districts to dilute their vote. Packing concentrates the vote of a particular group into a singular district thereby ensuring that they have fewer representatives in office. In addition to being unconstitutional, racial gerrymandering also provides a heightened barrier of access for voters in packed districts. Districts that have been deemed majority-minority are understaffed on voting days, have workers who are poorly trained on voting procedures, utilize faulty or broken machinery, and—most often—have longer lines to vote.

24th Amendment

prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax

15th Amendment (extending the franchise)

prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

19th Amendment

prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex. August 18, 1920

Equal Rights Amendment

proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. It seeks to end the legal distinctions between men and women in terms of divorce, property, employment, and other matters. The ERA passed Congress in 1972 with a seven-year time limit in its proposing clause. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress on March 22, 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. In order to be added to the Constitution, it needed approval by legislatures in three-fourths (38) of the 50 states. By 1977, the legislatures of 35 states had approved the amendment. In 1978, Congress voted to extend the original March 1979 deadline to June 30, 1982. However, no additional states voted yes before that date, and the ERA fell three states short of ratification. On March 22, 2017, 45 years to the day after Congress passed the ERA, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify it. On May 30, 2018, Illinois became the 37th state. And, in a historic vote to become the 38th state to ratify, the state of Virginia voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment on January 15, 2020. It will be interesting to see if our federal government will accept and recognize the 38th states vote to ratification and proceed with signing the amendment into law or if they will reason that the vote was well beyond the deadline. It is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals

Civil Rights

the rights and privileges guaranteed by the government to all citizens under the equal protection and due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments and the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. These rights are based on the idea that the government should protect individuals from discrimination that results from inherent characteristics. These inherent/individual characters are part of a person's nature and include race, religion, national origin, and sex.