exam 3 cases
Batson v. Kentucky (1986) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
CASE: Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him. issue: Did the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude the four blacks from the jury violate Batson's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair jury trial and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws?YES -Justice Powell held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.
Brown v. Board of Education I and II (1954-55) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
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. Issue: What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? -The Brown I decision shall be implemented "with all deliberate speed."
Sweatt v. Painter (1950) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
Case: In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students. Issue: Did the Texas admissions scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? YES -In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
Case: In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years). Issue: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?YES -the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause -The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: 1911, a St. Louis, Missouri neighborhood enacted a racially restrictive covenant designed to prevent African-Americans and Asian-Americans from living in the area. In 1945, an African-American family (the Shelleys) moved into the neighborhood. Louis Kraemer brought suit to enforce the covenant and prevent the Shelleys from moving into their house. A similar lawsuit arose in Detroit, Michigan. Both state supreme courts enforced the covenants because they were private rather than state action. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases on appeal. issue: Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?YES -Private parties may abide by the terms of such a covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant, as that would be a state action. Thus, the enforcements of the racially restrictive covenants in state court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plyler v. Doe (1982) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. issue: Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?YES -The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections -Since the state 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 needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law
Benisek v. Lamone/Russo v. Common Cause (2019) The 14thAmendment and Voting Discrimination
case: A three-judge district court struck down North Carolina's 2016 congressional map, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the map and that the map was the product of partisan gerrymandering. The district court then enjoined the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans, led by Robert Rucho, head of the senate redistricting committee, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. issue: Do the plaintiffs in this case have standing to pursue their partisan gerrymandering claims? Are the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims justiciable? Is North Carolina's 2016 congressional map an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander? -Partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court's decision by holding that the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny. issue: Does the University of Texas' use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?NO -Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 4-3 majority. The Court held that the University of Texas' use of race as a factor in the holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education (1971) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court. Issue: Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation? -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; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.
UC-Davis v. Bakke (1978) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: 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.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. issue: 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?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. Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Craig v. Boren (1976) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: 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. issue: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?YES -7-to-2 decision, 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. -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.
Miller v. Johnson (1995) The 14th Amendment and Voting Discrimination
case: Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community." issue: Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?YES -a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race. Applying the rule laid down in Shaw v. Reno requires strict scrutiny whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process.
Romer v. Evans (1996) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. issue: Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?YES -6-to-3 decision, Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause -Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
Hunter v. Underwood (1985) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: Edwards, an African-American, and Underwood, a White, were blocked from voting after presenting a worthless check. Their disenfranchisement was mandated by § 182 of the Alabama Constitution, which disenfranchised persons convicted of "any crime...involving moral turpitude." Edwards and Underwood contended that the registrar's decision to deny them suffrage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, since the purpose and effect of this rule was directed against Afro-American suffrage. issue: Does a state's constitutional provision disenfranchising those persons convicted of, among other offenses, "any crime involving moral turpitude" violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?YES -The Court held there was impermissible racial motivation and a racially discriminatory impact was demonstrated. The Court affirmed the appellate court's holding in favor of appellees and held that Ala. Code § 182 was unconstitutional. The Court affirmed the appellate court's holding against appellants because the statute that restricted appellees' ability to vote had an impermissible racial motivation and a racially discriminatory impact was demonstrated, therefore, the statute was unconstitutional.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black, purchased a first-class ticket and sat in the white-designated railroad car. Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act and argued in court that the Act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the separate but equal doctrine. issue:Was 1890 La. Acts No. 111, p. 152, an act which provided for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races, violative of the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution? NO Dissent: John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system
Cleburne v. Cleburne (1985) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Age Religion, or Other Characteristics
case: In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc. submitted a permit application to operate a home for the mentally retarded. The city council of Cleburne voted to deny the special use permit, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance. issue: Did the denial of the permit violate the Equal Protection rights of Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and its potential residents? -In a unanimous judgment, the Court held that the denial of the special use permit to Cleburne Living Centers, Inc. was premised on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, and hence unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court declined to grant the mentally retarded the status of a "quasi-suspect class," it nevertheless found that the "rational relation" test for legislative action provided sufficient protection against invidious discrimination.
Foster v. Chatman (2016) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: In 1986, Timothy Tyrone Foster, an 18-year-old black man, was charged with murdering Queen White, an elderly white woman. At the trial, the prosecution used peremptory strikes against all four of the qualified black jurors. The prosecution provided reasons, and the trial court held that the reasons were sufficient. An all-white jury convicted Foster of murder and imposed the death penalty. issue: Was there race-based discrimination of the type Batson v. Kentucky prohibits in the jury selection process of Foster's trial?YES -Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 7-1 majority. The Court held that the third step of a Batson challenge, which requires the defendant to show that the strikes of prospective jurors based on race was purposeful discrimination, was clearly met in this case, and the state court erred in finding otherwise
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School, She was denied admission. 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. 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. issue: 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?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. -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."
Mount Lemmon Fire Dept v. Guido (2018) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Age Religion, or Other Characteristics
case: In 2000, John Guido and Dennis Rankin were hired by the Mount Lemmon Fire District, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, were the two oldest full-time employees at the Fire District when they were terminated in 2009. Guido and Rankin filed age discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found reasonable cause to believe that the Fire District had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34. Guido and Rankin subsequently filed suit against the Fire District. issue: Under the ADEA, does the same twenty-employee minimum that applies to private employers also apply to political subdivisions of a state, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or does the ADEA apply instead to all state political subdivisions of any size, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case? -In a unanimous (8-0) opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the ADEA applies to all state political subdivisions, regardless of the number of employees.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) The 14th Amendment and Voting Discrimination
case: In 2005, the Indiana Legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Plaintiffs including the local Democratic Party and interest groups representing minority and elderly citizens argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the right to vote. At trial, the plaintiffs did not produce any witnesses who claimed they would be unable to meet the law's requirements. issue: Does a law that requires voters to present either a state or federal photo identification unduly burden citizens' right to vote? -By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court upheld the law, concluding that the photo I.D. requirement was closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interests in preventing voter fraud. The slight burden the law imposed on voters' rights did not outweigh these interests, which the Court characterized as "neutral and nondiscriminatory."
Reed v Reed (1971) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: 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. issue: Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? -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."
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: In August 1958 William H. Burton, an African American, entered the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, a restaurant leasing space within a parking garage operated by the Wilmington Parking Authority, and was denied service solely because of his race. The Parking Authority provided the restaurant heating and gas services and maintained the premises at its own expense. Burton filed suit seeking an injunction preventing the restaurant from operating in a racially discriminatory manner on the ground that doing so violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A state court granted the injunction but was reversed on appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court. issue: Did the Eagle Coffee Shoppe's refusal to serve Burton constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? -the Court found that the restaurant and the parking authority were so physically and financially intertwined that the private entity's conduct could be imputed to the government. Thus, it's discrimination could be considered state action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Masterpiece Cake v. Co CR Commission (2018) The 14th Amendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: 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 because of his religious beliefs. issue: 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?YES -The Court explained that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause. The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha. The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born. -thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth. "The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
case: K. Leroy Irvis, a black man who was a guest of a white member of the Moose Lodge No. 107, was refused service at the club's dining room because of his race. The bylaws of the Lodge limited membership to white male Caucasians. Irvis challenged the club's refusal to serve him, arguing that the action of the Pennsylvania liquor board issuing the Lodge a license made the club's discrimination "state action." issue: Did the discriminatory practices violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?NO -6-to-3 decision, The Court noted that the state action doctrine did not necessarily apply to all private entities that received benefits or services from the government; otherwise, all private associations that received electricity, water, and fire protection would be subject to state regulation. The Court found that the Moose Lodge "a private social club in a private building," and thus not subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
Bradwell v. Illinois (1872) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: Myra Bradwell asserted her right to a license to practice law in Illinois by virtue of her status as a United States citizen. The judges of the Illinois Supreme Court denied her application with only one judge dissenting. issue: Is the right to obtain a license to practice law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to all citizens of the United States?NO -While the Court agreed that all citizens enjoy certain privileges and immunities which individual states cannot take away, it did not agree that the right to practice law in a state's courts is one of them. -Justice Bradley- the importance of maintaining the "respective spheres of man and woman," with women performing the duties of motherhood and wife in accordance with the "law of the Creator."
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: Oklahoma's Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 allowed the state to sterilize a person who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." After his third conviction, Skinner was determined to be a habitual offender and ordered to be sterilized. He argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. issue: Did the Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?YES -the Court reasoned that because of the social and biological implications of reproduction and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, compulsory sterilization laws should be subject to strict scrutiny.
Husted v. APRI (2018) The 14thAmendment and Voting Discrimination
case: Plaintiffs are various civil rights groups that are challenging the process, claiming that it is not only inappropriate to remove individuals from the voter rolls as a consequence of failing to vote but also violates part of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The Act prohibits a program for voter-list maintenance for federal elections that involves "the removal of the name of any personal from the official list of voters . . . by reason of the person's failure to vote." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit previously struck down these rules, deeming them a violation of federal voting law because Ohio's process involves using an individual's failure to vote as a "trigger" for sending out a confirmation notice to that person. issue: Is Ohio's list-maintenance process permissible under 52 U.S.C. § 20507, given that it relies on the inactivity of a registered voter as a "trigger" to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the NVRA and HAVA? -5-4 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court found that Ohio's procedure of requiring (1) a failure to vote for two years, (2) a failure to return a notice card, and (3) a failure to vote for four additional years was sufficiently rigorous under NVRA and its amended versions
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (2014) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Age Religion, or Other Characteristics
case: Respondent (Abercrombie) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie's employee dress policy, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf's behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant's religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship issue: In order for an unlawful practice claim to prosper, is it sufficient for a rejected job applicant to show only that need for religious accommodation was a motivating factor in employer's decision, not that employer had knowledge of that need?YES -The Court held that, to hold an employer liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an applicant for a position must only show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision not to hire her.
Richardson v. Ramirez (1974) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: Respondents, three individuals, who were prevented from registering to vote because of their past criminal records, sued for a writ of mandate to compel their registration. The state supreme court held that laws disenfranchising felons were unenforceable because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV. On appeal, the issue was found justiciable. Respondents had brought the action on behalf of others similarly situated, even though they had since been permitted to register to vote. issue: Is it constitutional for a state to disenfranchise ex-felons from voting?YES -The court ruled that a criminal record was a factor that a state could lawfully take into consideration in determining the qualifications of voters. Because U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2, contained language suggesting that the practice of depriving felons of voting rights was acceptable, and because this practice was historically viewed as valid, respondents were not entitled to register as voters under the Equal Protection Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Age Religion, or Other Characteristics
case: Robert Murgia, although he was in excellent physical and mental health, was forced to retire at age fifty according to state law. Murgia had been a uniformed officer in the state police force. Murgia successfully challenged the mandatory retirement law in district court. issue: Did the Massachusetts law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?NO -The Court found that the right of governmental employment was not per se fundamental, and that uniformed state police officers over 50 did not constitute a suspect class under the Clause. Applying a rational relationship test, the Court reasoned that the statute was sufficiently justified as a means of protecting the public "by assuring physical preparedness of [the] uniformed police."
Department of Commerce v. New York (2019) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Citizenship and Felon Status
case: Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross issued a decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire. The decision was challenged in federal court by a coalition of states, cities, and counties, with the challengers alleging that the question could cause a significant undercount because some households with individuals who are unlawfully present in the country would be deterred from responding. The challengers claim the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious and that it violates various regulatory, statutory, and constitutional provisions. - The ruling intervened in the exercise of delegated congressional authority to invoke an exception for evaluating agency decisions beyond the scope of the administrative record on what it called a "strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior" drawn from the 1971 case Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe. The dissenting justices argued that the exception opens a new legal avenue for challengers to contest administrative actions based purely on pretex
Shelby Co. v. Holder (2013) The 14th Amendment and Voting Discrimination
case: Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Congress did not exceed its powers by reauthorizing Section 5 and that Section 4(b) is still relevant to the issue of voting discrimination. issue: Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?YES -5-4 majority. The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) The 14thAmendment and Discrimination Based on Age Religion, or Other Characteristics
case: Texas public elementary and secondary schools rely on local property taxes for supplemental revenue. Rodriguez, acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged this funding scheme by arguing that it underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, the school districts claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures. issue: Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?NO -The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory."
US v. Windsor (2013) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: The State of New York recognized the marriage of New York residents, respondent and the decedent, who wed in Canada. When the decedent died in 2009, she left her entire estate to respondent. Respondent sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act--a law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations--to define "marriage" and "spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. The government was granted certiorari after the appellate court ruled the law in question unconstitutional. issue: Whether Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C.S. § 7, was unconstitutional?YES -The state's decision to give same-sex couples the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import, but the government used the state-defined class for the opposite and improper purpose of imposing restrictions and disabilities, and § 7 which sought to injure the very same-sex class the state sought to protect, violated basic due process and equal protection principles by identifying and making unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.
United States v. Virginia (1996) The 14thAmendment and Gender/Sexual Orientation
case: The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional issue: Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?NO -7-to-1 decision, Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) The 14th Amendment and Voting Discrimination
case: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prevented states from using a "test or device" (such as literacy tests) to deny citizens the right to vote. Under the Attorney General's jurisdiction, federal examiners were empowered to intervene to investigate election irregularities. issue: Did the Act violate the states' rights to implement and control elections? NO -Noting that the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment gave Congress "full remedial powers" to prevent racial discrimination in voting, the Act was a "legitimate response" to the "insidious and pervasive evil" which had denied blacks the right to vote since the Fifteenth Amendment's adoption in 1870.
Brown v. Board of Education I and II (1954-55) The 14th Amendment and Racial Discrimination
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.) Issue: Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? YES -Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion. "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.