Final Study Guide POSC 130

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

(1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state. - used to justify buck v. bell

Cooper v. Aaron

(1958) "need time" to integrate was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagreed with them. In the wake of Brown v. Board of Education, the school district of Little Rock, Arkansas formulated a plan to desegregate its schools. Meanwhile, other school districts in the state opposed the Supreme Court's rulings and attempted to find ways to perpetuate segregation. The Arkansas state legislature amended the state constitution to oppose desegregation and then passed a law relieving children from mandatory attendance at integrated schools. The school board of Little Rock still continued with the desegregation program. On February 20, 1958, five months after the integration crisis involving the Little Rock Nine, members of the school board (along with the Superintendent of Schools) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging suspension of its plan of desegregation. They alleged that public hostility to desegregation and that the opposition of Governor Orval Faubus and the state legislature created an intolerable and chaotic situation. The relief the plaintiffs requested was for the African-American children to be returned to segregated schools and for the implementation of the desegregation plan to be postponed for two and a half years. The district court granted the school board's request, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Prior to the Eighth Circuit's decision, the Supreme Court had denied the defendants' request to decide the case without waiting for the appeals court to deliberate on the case. The court's decision[edit] In an extraordinary joint opinion authored by all nine Justices, the Court noted that the school board had acted in good faith, that most of the problems stemmed from the official opposition of the Arkansas state government to racial integration in both word and deed. Nonetheless, it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to maintain law and order by depriving the black students of their equal rights under the law. More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution,[1] the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the Arkansas legislature and Governor were not bound by the Brown decision. The Supreme Court rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition, which had been invoked by segregationists. Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective. Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), for these same officials to ignore the Court's precedents is equal to a violation of that oath. Even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.

One-person one vote - Reynolds v. Sims

(1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama, but the decision affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population after its application in five companion cases in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware The Court struck down state senate inequality, basing their decision on the principle of "one person, one vote."

Epperson v. Arkansas

(1968) U.S. Supreme Court holds similar laws violate the Establishment clause was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught. These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard. States may not require curricula to align with the views of any particular religion.

Kolender v. Lawson

(1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide identification. The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Using the construction of the California appellate court in Solomon, the Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.[3] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.[Note 1] [Note 2] Because the U.S. Supreme Court were able to resolve Kolender on the issue of vagueness, they did not decide the Fourth Amendment issue.

Edwards v. Aguillard

(1986) Challenge to Louisiana's 1981 Creationism Act Question whether "balanced treatment" violates the Establishment clause Is creationism a science and hence beyond the scope of the Establishment clause? was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction". In support of Aguillard, 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists,[1] 17 state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations filed amicus briefs that described creation science as being composed of religious tenets. Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion.

Meritor v. Vinson

(1986) is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court recognised sexual harassment as a violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable. Types of sexual harassment Quid pro quo Hostile work environment Key Issues 1. new ype of sex harassment - non-economic injury, end relationship w supervisor. what evidence? appearance/fantasies/etc? whether the bank should be sued --> but not notified? 2. employers not auto liable - but just bc didn't file grievance doesn't settle that question 3. voluntariness - whether advances were welcome - sexually provocative speech and dress are to be taken into account in prosecution 4. relevant evidence - speech, dress, demeanor 5. grievance mechanism - does sexual harassment laws do more harm than good? A claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Oncale v. Sundowner

(1998) Same sex sexual harassment a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that Title VII's protection against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex. Title VII's protection against discrimination in the workplace "because of... sex" applies to harassment between members of the same sex.

Bush v. Gore

(2000), was the United States Supreme Court decision that resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on 12 December 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000). The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election. In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12.[1] The vote regarding the Equal Protection Clause was 7-2, and regarding the lack of an alternative method was 5-4.[2] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. The Supreme Court decision allowed the previous vote certification to stand, as made by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, for George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College, and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained). Media organizations subsequently analyzed the ballots, and under the strategy that Al Gore had pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount, as filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties, then Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. The study also found that the actual statewide Florida recount with disputed ballots containing overvotes (where a voter hole-punches multiple candidates but writes out the name of their intended candidate) would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by between 60 and 171 votes, if the Supreme Court had not stopped the recount. Florida subsequently changed to new voting machines to avoid punch cards which had allowed dimpled or hanging chads. In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

(2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5-4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

- Buck v. Bell case - Carrie Buck was forcibly sterilized - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

The structure of scientific revolutions

1. Thomas Kuhn 2. Paradigm shifts 3. Public tendency toward critical acceptance of science. 4. Potentially dangerous to base court decisions on scientific theories.

Shapiro v. Thompson/The right to travel

1969), was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution. (Although the right was recognized under the Equal Protection clause in this case, pre-Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel was understood as protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV), as a privilege of citizenship, and therefore might have been applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV, as J. Stewart wanted.) The fundamental right to travel and the Equal protection clause forbid a state from reserving welfare benefits only for persons that have resided in the state for at least a year.

The Relf Sisters

1973 -- Af-am women sterilized, welfare. Mary Alice was 14 and Minnie was 12 when they became victims of the abusive practice of sterilizing poor, black women in the South. Their mother, who had very little education and was illiterate, signed an "X" on a piece of paper, expecting her daughters, who were both mentally disabled, would be given birth control shots. Instead, the young women were surgically sterilized and robbed of their right to ever bear children of their own. The Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Relf sisters and exposed the wide-spread sterilization abuse funded by the federal government and practiced for decades. The district court found an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 poor people were sterilized annually under federally-funded programs. Countless others were forced to agree to be sterilized when doctors threatened to terminate their welfare benefits unless they consented to the procedures. The judge prohibited the use of federal dollars for involuntary sterilizations and the practice of threatening women on welfare with the loss of their benefits if they refused to comply. As the litigation made its way through the courts, the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare withdrew the challenged regulations (under which the government funded the forced sterilizations), and the lawsuit's exposure led to the requirement that doctors obtain "informed consent" before performing sterilization procedures. The District Court declared certain HEW (now called the Department of Health and Human Services) regulations covering sterilizations were "arbitrary and unreasonable" and enjoined HEW from providing federal funds to be used for the sterilization of certain incompetent persons. The District Court also ordered HEW to amend its regulations. During the course of the litigation, HEW withdrew the challenged regulations and represented on appeal its intention to issue new regulations. The Court of Appeals held that the controversy was mooted out by HEW's actions and remanded the case back to the District Court for dismissal.

Madrigal v. Qulligan

1975 a federal class action lawsuit from Los Angeles County, California involving sterilization of Latina women without informed consent, or through coercion. The judge ruled in favor of the doctors, but the case led to better informed consent for patients, especially those who are not native English speakers California had one of the highest sterilization rates in the country during the time of Madrigal v. Quilligan. The eugenics movement was part of the sterilization campaign by deeming those unfit of procreating candidates for sterilization. There was also a funding program that was enacted[by whom?] that gave states money based on the amount of sterilization procedures performed. Beginning in 1909, these procedures were supported by federal agencies that began to disburse funds in conjunction with the family planning initiative.[1] With support from the federal government and an influx of immigrants from Mexico, California saw some of the highest rates of sterilization. Part of the forced sterilization was in part due to the notion that immigrant families would put a strain on fiscal budgets and through sterilization there would be control of the population, as well as lifelong birth control. In the case of Madrigal v. Quilligan unsuspecting women were coerced to sign the paperwork to perform the sterilization and others were told that the process could be reversed. When these various women came together under the new Chicano Movement and meetings and learned they had the same problems and learned of the sterilization in these Los Angeles Area Hospitals, they came together to file a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Hospital, which was where these procedures took place. The ten women in the lawsuit were employed working class women independent of government assistance yet they were still sterilized.[1] One of the main arguments for sterilizations as mentioned before was this fiscal concern of these families on the state. Even though birth control was available it was more marketed to middle class women and not many of these poor Mexican women. Dr. Bernard Rosenfeld, who was a resident at County Hospital and witnessed the doctors abusing the system of sterilization, spoke out against these practices and brought them to the public's attention.[2] As soon as Chicana Feminists heard of the stories from these women they began to take action, and were very proactive in protesting the mistreatment of their fellow Mexicans

Cal. Fed. v.. Guerra

1985 took leave to have child - tried to come back - declined her - CA dept fair emp and housing - bank violated 4 mos leave - bank said law disc against men - preempted by fed law, title vii, 9th circ, CA law doesn't const disc against men SCOTUS found no pre-emption is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act §12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law. Logic of Cal Fed: Justice Marshall held: Acceptable for the state law to favor pregnant women. No inconsistency necessarily between state and federal law.

Shaw v. Reno

1993 - districts being designed to help minorities get elected - what is he standard for analyzing? -- strict scrutiny was a United States Supreme Court case argued on April 20, 1993. The ruling was significant in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. On the other hand, bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The redistricting that occurred after the 2000 census, as required to reflect population changes, was the first nationwide redistricting to apply the results of Shaw v. Reno. Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Miller v. Johnson

1995 empower minorities strict scrutiny test must be used was a United States Supreme Court case concerning "affirmative gerrymandering/racial gerrymandering", where racial minority-majority electoral districts are created during redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation. Only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was primarily African American between 1980 and 1990. According to the 1990 Census, Georgia's increase in population entitled the state to an eleventh congressional seat. That prompted Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department denied several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, as the state's population was 27% African-American, but formed a majority in only one of the now 11 districts, the Assembly drew the 11th district to create a second majority-black district. However the district lacked any sort of organic structure, and was deemed a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. The case was brought to court by white voters in the Eleventh Congressional District of the state of Georgia. Question Before the Supreme Court[edit] Is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Decision of the Court[edit] Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court. Ruling against the district, the Court declared the district unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, according to the interpretation in Shaw v. Reno (1993). The court noted that in some instances, "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 (Amendment 2) and Prop. 8

1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.[1] The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard".[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.[4][5][6][7] The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers,[1] for the Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor (2013), and for the Court's ruling striking down state bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Justice Anthony Kennedy authored all four opinions, and was joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg in every one. In 1992, Colorado voters approved by initiative an amendment to the Colorado state constitution (Amendment 2) that would have prevented any city, town, or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize homosexuals as a protected class. Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 California state elections. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance[2] of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage (Proposition 22, 2000) unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

Relevance of "foreign law"

Ability to identify shared legal principles Capacity to harmonize conflicting policies Limits ethnocentrism

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Amish --> away from society --> wanted to be exempt from having kids go past middle school but that's illegal --> SC granted them an exemption bc it was religiously motivated. (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools. dr. hostetler --> expert on amish society --> escaped and later made sure they didn't have to go to school (escape) --> totally weird tbh "the hookies" --> amish bc they don't go to school

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

An act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. an Act of Congress in the United States designed to prohibit the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment. The Act prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future. The legislation also bars employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.[1] Senator Ted Kennedy called it the "first major new civil rights bill of the new century."[2] The Act contains amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974[3] and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.[4] In 2008, on April 24 H.R. 493 passed the Senate 95-0. The bill was then sent back to the House of Representatives and passed 414-1 on May 1; the lone dissenter was Congressman Ron Paul.[5] President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on May 21, 2008.

Critical Race Theory

Bias in the legal system Race as socially constructed Some key theorists: Derek Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Charles Lawrence, Ian Haney-Lopez, Mari Matsuda, and Adrien Wing is a theoretical framework in the social sciences focused upon the application of critical theory, a critical examination of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law, and power.

Models of Feminist Jurisprudence Dominance Model

Catharine MacKinnon Critique of military and corporate institution male POV in comparison -- missing the point -- legal standards reflect male power - if this was a woman's world, things like maternity leave wouldn't be extraneous, they'd be built into society

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Chines American who ran laundry --> SF --> wooden laundry had to apply for license --> no mention of race in law --> 80 non chinese applied, 1 denied. 200 chinese applied, all denied, neutral language but unfair in action --> violates equal protection --> kept operation diff to prove that intention of law was racist. intent standard. impact standard --> if diff it would effect them, hard to have laws that would benefit races. (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5-4) on 21 January 2010 that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.[2][3] In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. This would violate a federal statute prohibiting certain electioneering communications near an election. The court found the provisions of the law that prohibited corporations and unions from making such electioneering communications to conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties. The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. And the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

Equal Protections Chart - Economic

Classification - Rational Standard of Review - Rational Basis Justification (State Interest) - Legitimate Law-Objective Means/Ends - Rational

Equal Protections Chart - Gender

Classification - Semi Suspect Standard of Review - Intermediate Justification (State Interest) - Important Law-Objective Means/Ends - Substantial

Equal Protections CHART - RACE

Classification - Suspect Standard of Review - Strict Scrutiny Justification (State Interest) - Compelling Law-Objective Means/Ends - Necessary/Least Burdensome

"To accommodate the reality of ethnic bonds, legislatures have long drawn voting districts along ethnic lines. Our Nations' cities are full of districts identified by their ethnic character -Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Polish, Russian, for example..."

Constitutional Law: Rights, Liberties and Justice 8th Edition By Lee Epstein, Thomas G. Walk - strict scrutiny when redrawing district lines

U.S. v. O'Brien - test for symbolic speech

David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. Question Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech? No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified. The formula examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. "[W]e think it clear," wrote Warren," that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest." First Amendment rights - U.S. v. O'Brien, U.S. Supreme Court (1968) Four part test for expressive conduct - 1. the ordinance must be within the constitutional power of the government. 2. ordinance must further an important or substantial governmental interest. 3. The government interest must be unrelated to the suppression of free speech. 4. Whether the incidental restriction on First Am. freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of a neutral governmental interest.

The right to beg

Does the First Amendment include the right to beg? Helen Hershkoff and Adam Cohen, Harvard Law Review (1991)

U.S. v. Fishman

Federal court rejects "brainwashing"testimony in U.S. v. Fishman (1990), a Mail fraud case Court concludes: "the record in this case establishes that the scientific community has resisted the Singer-Ofshe thesis applying coercive persuasion to religious cults...there is no consensus of general acceptance within these association regarding the thought reform theories of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe...the Court therefore excludes the defendant's profferred testimony"

Mozert v. Hawkins - Vicki Frost

Fundamentalists object to secular humanism in required textbooks (not Supreme Court, 1987) This case arose under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that a public school requirement that all students in grades one through eight use a prescribed set of reading textbooks violated the constitutional rights of objecting parents and students. The district court entered an injunction which required the schools to excuse objecting students from participating in reading classes where the textbooks are used and awarded the plaintiff parents more than $50,000 damages.

Francis Galton

Galton invented the term eugenics in 1883 and set down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.[24] He believed that a scheme of 'marks' for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives. He pointed out some of the tendencies in British society, such as the late marriages of eminent people, and the paucity of their children, which he thought were dysgenic. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. On 29 October 1901, Galton chose to address eugenic issues when he delivered the second Huxley lecture at the Royal Anthropological Institute[21]

Models of Feminist Jurisprudence Difference Model

Herma Hill Kay "episodic analysis" - only different in certain instances. - intermediate scrutiny favored - only "real" biological differences - what is a real biological difference? --> PREGNANCY, MENSTRUATION, etc.

Ruth Benedict's view of "normalcy"; also "equally valid patterns of life" formulation

If Benedict's defense of ethical relativism is correct, then the correct way to resolve a personal dilemma might be to take a survey or poll to see what the majority in your society think is right. If the majority favors capital punishment and opposes abortion, for example, then capital punishment is right and abortion is wrong. Can you defend Benedict against this consequence? Ruth Benedict gives an account on Defense of Ethical Relativism in which she views morality as subordinate on the setting of the different cultures, that is to say in other words that morality relies and is defined accordingly to the history and environment of the different cultures that exist. Benedict concludes that "moral relativism is the correct view of moral principles" but what in simple words this mean? Moral relativism by definition is the idea that says that moral or immoral, good or bad is primarily dependent on society's cultural and environmental events. In other words, there are no wrong or right points of view because people's morals are affected and influenced by social systems. If the majority favors capital punishment and opposes abortion it would become a paradoxical moral or decision. Capital punishment is taking away the life of someone else that happens to be guilty and therefore has to be punished with death. On the other hand opposing abortion is like taking away women's freedom of their body. So according to Benedict, no matter the consequences behind an abortion, if the majority opposes it means that abortion is wrong then it will hold the truth value of ethical relativism. Why? Well because the majority of people are being shaped by their environment, their history and culture. So the truth value of their morals depends on the basis of what is more reasonable to social systems. Furthermore, is it the same dilemma with Capital punishment being right if the majority thinks that capital punishment is a form of "justice" for them. Morals are shared among people and among societies, and it's like a normalcy syndrome of morals.

The Black Codes

In the United States, the Black Codes were laws passed by Southern states in 1865 and 1866, after the Civil War. These laws had the intent and the effect of restricting African Americans' freedom, and of compelling them to work in a labor economy based on low wages or debt. Black Codes were part of a larger pattern of Southern whites trying to suppress the new freedom of emancipated African American slaves, the freedmen. From the colonial period, colonies and states had passed laws that discriminated against free Blacks. In the South, these were generally included in "slave codes"; the goal was to reduce influence of free blacks (particularly after slave rebellions) because of their potential influence on slaves. Restrictions included prohibiting them from voting (although North Carolina allowed this before 1831), bearing arms, gathering in groups for worship and learning to read and write. A major purpose of these laws was to preserve slavery. In the first two years after the Civil War, white dominated southern legislatures passed Black Codes modeled after the earlier slave codes. They were particularly concerned with controlling movement and labor, as slavery had given way to a free labor system. Although freedmen had been emancipated, their lives were greatly restricted by the Black Codes. The term Black Codes was given by "negro leaders and the Republican organs", according to historian John S. Reynolds.[1][2][3] The defining feature of the Black Codes was broad vagrancy law, which allowed local authorities to arrest freedpeople for minor infractions and commit them to involuntary labor. This period was the start of the convict lease system, also described as "slavery by another name" by Douglas Blackmon in his 2008 book on this topic.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Judgment reversed and suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1. Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit. 2. The Property Clause is only applicable to lands possessed at the time of ratification (1787). As such, Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories. Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional. 3. Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[6] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[7] Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave African Americans full citizenship. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by scholars. Bernard Schwartz says it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound".[8] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decision".[9] Historian David Thomas Konig says it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever"

Models of Feminist Jurisprudence Critical Race Feminism

Kimberle Crenshaw "intersectionality" multiple identities amd most laws don't take that into account - natural hair employment laws.

"no sit, no lie" policies

Known as "obstruction" ordinances designed to rid cities of homeless people. What is the purpose of the laws? What are the alternative venues for the homeless? Roulette v. City of Seattle Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1996) Issues: Symbolic speech Substantive due process

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

LBJ - prohibit racial discrimination in voting - enforce the 14th and 15th amendments s a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.[7][8] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections.[7] Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act secured voting rights for racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.[9] The Act contains numerous provisions that regulate election administration. The Act's "general provisions" provide nationwide protections for voting rights. Section 2 is a general provision that prohibits every state and local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Other general provisions specifically outlaw literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities. The Act also contains "special provisions" that apply to only certain jurisdictions. A core special provision is the Section 5 preclearance requirement, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing any change affecting voting without receiving preapproval from the U.S. Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C. that the change does not discriminate against protected minorities.[10] Another special provision requires jurisdictions containing significant language minority populations to provide bilingual ballots and other election materials. Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the "coverage formula" prescribed in Section 4(b). The coverage formula was originally designed to encompass jurisdictions that engaged in egregious voting discrimination in 1965, and Congress updated the formula in 1970 and 1975. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.

Lemon test

Lemon v. Kurtzman established the test. To pass the Lemon test, the statute must: 1. have a secular purpose 2. its primary effect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion and 3. it must not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. Each prong is independent. This means if the statute fails to satisfy any one of the three requirements, it is unconstitutional

Dr. Margaret Singer vs. Dr. Eileen Barker

Margaret Thaler Singer (1921-2003) was a clinical psychologist and important researcher with her colleague Lyman Wynne of family communication.[1] She was a prominent figure in the study of undue influence in social and religious contexts is a professor in sociology, an emeritus member of the London School of Economics (LSE), and a consultant to that institution's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. She is the chairperson and founder of the Information Network Focus on Religious Movements (INFORM) and has written studies about groups she defines as cults and new religious movements (NRMs). Larry Wollersheim lawsuit against Church of Scientology. Jury awarded $30 million but reduced subsequently to a few million. "Fair game" doctrine. Role of science in the scientology case expert witness on "brainwashing" Dr. Margaret Singer

Baldus study

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) Baldus study shows disparities Georgia's capital punishment violated equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the 8th Amendment U.S. Supreme Court rejected implications of statistical patterns The Procedural Reform study looked at murder trials which occurred both before and after Furman v. Georgia. Baldus's study found that in murder trials before Furman v. Georgia, the death penalty was given to black defendants 19% of the time and to white defendants 8% of the time. The death penalty was given to defendants with black victims 10% of the time and to defendants with white victims 18% of the time. From this data, the researchers concluded that the race of the victim was more influential than the race of the defendant in death penalty sentencing. It was also concluded that black defendants and defendants with white victims were given harsher punishments that other defendants convicted of the same crimes.[8] In murder trials occurring after Furman v. Georgia, Baldus and his fellow researchers found that the death penalty was given to 22% of white defendants and to 16% of black defendants. In trials where the victim was white the death penalty was given out 27% of the time and in trials where the victim was black the death penalty was given out 7% of the time.[9]

Yogyakarta Principles

Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity (2007) is a set of principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, intended to apply international human rights law standards to address the abuse of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and (briefly) intersex people. The Principles were developed to enhance the individual sovereignty of subjective identity, a principal articulated in a host of international human rights laws that protect the authentic reality of individual identity and sovereignty from the legal fictions and social constructs of national or state collectivist ideologies. The issue is further articulated by the struggles of indigenous peoples, gender and religious identity communities worldwide.

eugenics

Racist science - the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis. Definition: the science of improving the qualities of a breed or species, especially of the human race by careful selection of parents. Social Darwinism - "survival of the fittest" 4. Francis Galton

Alan Bakke

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, (/ˈbɑːkiː/) 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Loving v. Virginia

Rejection of equal application theory VA law -- white supremacy, racial integrity act 1924 -- prevent interracial marriages (white w/ other races), both parties subject to punishment (so like not racist, bc like both get like punished, so like not a violation) is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, overruling Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The decision was followed by an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S., and is remembered annually on Loving Day, June 12. It has been the subject of three movies and several songs. Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

John Thomas Scopes - "Monkey trial"

Scopes v. State (1927) Tennessee enacted a law making it illegal to teach evolution in public schools The teacher was convicted and fined $200. State supreme court upheld the law but reversed on a technicality. was an American legal case in 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant. Scopes was found guilty and fined $10 ($136.72 in 2016), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, which set Modernists, who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion,[2] against Fundamentalists, who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether "modern science" should be taught in schools.

Buckley v. Valeo

The Court upheld some federal limits on campaign contributions, but held expenditure limits unconstitutional. is US constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of judges held limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 were unconstitutional. The majority, in a per curiam opinion, contended that expenditure limits contravened the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression. It limited disclosure provisions, required the Federal Election Commission's composition to be changed. The lead dissenting judgment of White J contended that Congress' judgment had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken."[1] Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the US Supreme Court significantly in the 5 to 4 decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti[2] and a series of further cases up to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.[3] This held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional.[4] These decisions have become central to political discussion, as politicians from all parties, but especially Democrats, have committed to overturning the principles of the Supreme Court, and pledged to nominate judges to the Supreme Court committed to overturning Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the Religion Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman James Madison in 1789, who derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs of all kinds. The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, still it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

19th Amendment

The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. Until the 1910s, most states disenfranchised women.

U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702

The Supreme Court adopts Rule 702 test Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. New validation test 1. Whether the proposition can be tested empirically. 2. Whether it has been tested. 3. Whether the theory has a known or potential rate of failure. 4. Whether the proposition has been subject to peer review. 5. Whether there are standards for using the methodology. 6. Whether the methodology is generally accepted. [Note last criterion is the standard from Frye.]

Korematsu v. United States

The exclusion order leading to Japanese American Internment was constitutional. was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government,[2] ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt. The lone Republican appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented. The opinion, written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. (The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding.") During the case, Solicitor General Charles Fahy is alleged to have suppressed evidence by keeping from the Court a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence indicating that there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies or sending signals to enemy submarines.[3] The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been controversial.[2] Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983, after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis. In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu's original conviction) because in Korematsu's original case, the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court's decision. The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned,[4] although, in 2011, the Department of Justice filed an official notice[5] conceding that the then Solicitor General's defense of the internment policy had been in error. However, the Court's opinion remains significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny standard to racial discrimination by the government, and for being one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government had met that standard. Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making;[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence."[9] Feldman summarized the present view of the case as: "Korematsu's uniquely bad legal status means it's not precedent even though it hasn't been overturned. Korematsu: "But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need." Fred Korematsu challenged internment Executive Order 9066 Strict scrutiny test Compelling state interest No less restrictive alternative Narrowly tailored

David Molko and Tracy Leal

The facts - dinner party with the Creative Community Project and field trip. Litigation Trial court discussed case on summary judgment Court of Appeal (state court) affirmed based on First Amendment argument . California Supreme Court reverses (6-2) in decision by Justice Stanley Mosk. d. Case settled out of court. Suit also brought against the deprogrammers of Molko. Booneville --> Unification Church --> Moonies recruit --> BAR expense of church --> kidnapped & deprogrammed Leal --> Booneville didn't know it was Moonies until after indoctrination - beliefs v. actions. --> actions not protected just bc it's a belief

Charles Lawrence and "unconscious racism"

The role of stereotypes Advertisements Children's books - Oompa Loompas Films - Star Wars characters Black Pete ("Zwarte Piet")

Ronald Dworkin's view of "merit"

There is no combination of abilities and skills and traits that constitutes "merit" in the abstract; if quick hands count as "merit" in the case of a prospective surgeon, this is because quick hands will enable him to serve the public better and for no other reason. If a black skin will, as a matter of regrettable fact, enable another doctor to do a different medical job better, then that black skin is by the same token "merit" as well. That argument may strike some as dangerous; but only because they confuse its conclusion—that black skin may be a socially useful trait in particular circumstances—with the very different and despicable idea that one race may be inherently more worthy than another.

Frye and Daubert tests

Under Frye, the test applied to novel scientific techniques and "hard" science Under Daubert, the definition of science encompassed "soft" science as well. 3. Contrary to expectation, Daubert facilitated use of novel testimony but impeded expert testimony in general. Frye -- a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1994), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence superseded Frye as the standard for admissibility of expert evidence in federal courts.[1] Some states, however, still adhere to the Frye standard. To meet the Frye standard, scientific evidence presented to the court must be interpreted by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community. This applies to procedures, principles or techniques that may be presented in the proceedings of a court case. In practical application of this standard, those who were proponents of a widely disputed scientific issue had to provide a number of experts to speak to the validity of the science behind the issue in question. Novel techniques, placed under the scrutiny of this standard forced courts to examine papers, books and judicial precedents on the subject at hand to make determinations as to the reliability and "general acceptance. Daubert standard - provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy refers to the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard even members of the Court agreed on the following guidelines for admitting scientific expert testimony: Judge is gatekeeper: Under Rule 702, the task of "gatekeeping", or assuring that scientific expert testimony truly proceeds from "scientific knowledge", rests on the trial judge. Relevance and reliability: This requires the trial judge to ensure that the expert's testimony is "relevant to the task at hand" and that it rests "on a reliable foundation". Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 584-587. Concerns about expert testimony cannot be simply referred to the jury as a question of weight. Furthermore, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 104(a), not Rule 104(b); thus, the Judge must find it more likely than not that the expert's methods are reliable and reliably applied to the facts at hand. Scientific knowledge = scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.[3] Illustrative Factors: The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met: Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community; Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; Whether it can be and has been tested; Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.[

University of Michigan cases

University of Michigan v. Gratz (2003) - College; Opinion by Justice Rehnquist University of Michigan v. Grutter (2003) - Law school; Opinion by Justice O'Connor was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional. was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Models of Feminist Jurisprudence Equal treatment (assimilationist model)

Wendy Williams - strict scrutiny everyone treated exactly the same invalidate laws that treat men and women differently favor gender neutral policies

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage[2]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. RFRA was held unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.—because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a US Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation. The basis for dispute arose when the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores, applied for a building permit to enlarge his 1923 mission-style St. Peter's Church in Boerne, Texas.[1] The building was located in a historic district and considered a contributing property. Local zoning authorities denied the permit, citing an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district. The Archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Flores argued that his congregation had outgrown the existing structure, rendering the ruling a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling state interest.

Creation science

a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the creation myth in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts,[2] theories and scientific paradigms about geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, based on local property taxes, was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated the appellees did not sufficiently prove that education is a fundamental right textually existed within the US Constitution and could thus (through the Fourteenth Amendment), be applied to the several States. It also found the financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny. Reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it causes inter-district expenditure disparities. Absolute equality of education funding is not required and a state system that encourages local control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas reversed.

quid pro quo

a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something. type of sexual harassment

separate but equal doctrine

a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law according to which racial segregation did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate."[1] The doctrine was confirmed in the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Though segregation laws existed before that case, the decision emboldened segregation states during the Jim Crow era, which had commenced in 1876 and supplanted the Black Codes, which restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans during the Reconstruction Era. 17 states had segregation laws.[which?] In practice the separate facilities provided to African Americans were rarely equal; usually they were not even close to equal, or they did not exist at all. The doctrine was overturned by a series of Supreme Court decisions, starting with Brown v. Board of Education of 1954. However, the overturning of segregation laws in the United States was a long process that lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, involving federal legislation (especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and many court cases.

Serrano v. Priest

a post-Rodriguez decision in which California courts found that the method of funding schools violated the California Constitution's equal protection clause. California's method of funding public education, because of district-to-district disparities, "fails to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution." "[As] a direct result of the financing scheme they are required to pay a higher tax rate than [taxpayers] in many other school districts in order to obtain for their children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other districts." "[That] an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity and constitutionality of the financing scheme under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the California Constitution."

Charles Davenport

a prominent American eugenicist and biologist. He was one of the leaders of the American eugenics movement. Eugenics — science of improvement of human race by better breeding Sir Francis Galton believes permanent advance is to be made only by securing the best "blood." "Man is an organism - an animal; and the laws of improvement of corn and of race horses hold true for him also." Eugenics has reference to offspring. The success of a marriage from the standpoint of eugenics is measured by the number of disease-resistant, cultivable offspring that come from it. The Need of Eugenics "The human babies born each year constitute the world's most valuable crop." Of the huge amount of babies born, only a tiny amount of kids get to live and be productive members of society. It's expensive and a waste of money and resources to maintain these kids. The General Procedure in Applied Eugenics gen prob of eugenist is clear - to improve the race by inducing young ppl to make a more reasonable selection of marriage mates. control by the state of the propagation of the mentally incompetent.

Thomas Kuhn

an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom. Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants.

Legal definitions of race "Blood quantum" rule

are those enacted in the United States and the former colonies to define qualification by ancestry as Native American, sometimes in relation to tribal membership. It ignored the Native American practices of absorbing other peoples by adoption, beginning with other Native Americans, and extending to children and young adults of European and African ancestry. It also ignored tribal cultural continuity after tribes had absorbed such adoptees and mixed-race children. A person's blood quantum (aka BQ) is defined as the percentage of their ancestors, out of their total ancestors, who are documented as full-blood Native Americans. For instance, a person who has one parent who is a full-blood Native American, and one who has no Native ancestry, has a blood quantum of 1/2. Since re-establishing self-government and asserting sovereignty, some tribes may use blood quantum as part of their requirements for membership or enrollment, often in combination with other criteria. For instance, the Omaha Nation requires a blood quantum of 1/4 Native American and descent from a registered ancestor for enrollment.

Southern Declaration on Integration

bunch of racists who didn't want integration as a response to Brown v. Board 96 congressmen -- "violation of SC rights" call on state not to comply was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress, in opposition to racial integration of public places.[1] The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Southern Democrats and two Republicans) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.[1] The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education, which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. School segregation laws were some of the most enduring and best-known of the Jim Crow laws that characterized the American South and several northern states at the time. The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of "clear abuse of judicial power." It promised to use "all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation."[3] The Manifesto suggested that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution should limit the reach of the Supreme Court on such issues.[4

Herbert Wechsler - "neutral principles"

criticisms of social science social science is flimsy "Professor Wechsler, disagreeing w Judge Learned Hand as to the justification for judicial review of legislative action, argues that courts have the power, and duty, to decide all constitutional cases in which the jurisdictional and procedural requirements are met. The author concludes that in these cases decisions must rest on reasoning and analysis which transcend the immediate result, and discusses instances in which he believes the SC has not been faithful to this principle."

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. Until Section 3 of the Act was struck down in 2013 (United States v. Windsor), DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.

strict scrutiny

he most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to determine which is weightier, a constitutional right or principle or the government's interest against observance of the principle. U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests: It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately. - race

Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark/doll experts

he research performed by the educational psychologists Kenneth B. Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark also influenced the Court's decision.[5] The Clarks' "doll test" studies presented substantial arguments to the Supreme Court about how segregation affected black schoolchildren's mental status.[6] - 1st case to regard social science as primary unmistakeable preference for white doll -- children so young, aware of prejudice and self hatred One doll was white with yellow hair, while the other was brown with black hair.[25] The child was then asked questions inquiring as to which one is the doll they would play with, which one is the nice doll, which one looks bad, which one has the nicer color, etc. The experiment showed a clear preference for the white doll among all children in the study.[26] These findings exposed internalized racism in African-American children, self-hatred that was more acute among children attending segregated schools. This research also paved the way for an increase in psychological research into areas of self-esteem and self-concept.

Dale Minami

is a San Francisco-based lawyer best known for heading the legal team that overturned the conviction of Fred Korematsu, whose defiance of the World War II Japanese American internment order lead to Korematsu v. United States, one of the most controversial United States Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century. USC

Clark v. Community of Non-Violence

is a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the National Park Service's regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall. The Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) group had planned to hold a demonstration on the National Mall and Lafayette Park where they would erect tent cities to raise awareness of the situation of the homeless. The group obtained the correct permits for a seven-day demonstration starting on the first day of winter. The Park Service however denied the request that participants be able to sleep in the tents. The CCNV challenged this regulation on the basis that it violated their First Amendment right.[1] A rule against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks is not beyond the constitutional power of the Government to enforce The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 29, 1984 and in a 7-2 majority vote in favor of the National Park Service, it held that the regulations did not violate the First Amendment. The Court stressed that expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, also that the means of the protest went against the government's interest in maintaining the condition of the national parks. The Court felt that the protest was not being threatened altogether and that it could take place in a park where sleeping was permitted. In essence because the demonstrators could find alternative ways of voicing their message their First Amendment right was safe. The regulation in question is also considered to be content neutral meaning the regulation did not have a bias against a particular message.

Windsor v. U.S. (2013)

is a landmark civil rights case[1][2][3] in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."[

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."[1] Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."[1] Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation.

Larry Wollersheim

lawsuit against Church of Scientology. Jury awarded $30 million but reduced subsequently to a few million. "Fair game" doctrine. Role of science in the scientology case expert witness on "brainwashing" Dr. Margaret Singer

Peter Irons

n 1981, Irons planned to write a book based on newly released FBI records from the early 20th century, a period when the agency targeted political radicals. However, when he visited the National Archives to review the materials, he realized that going through the 5,000 uncatalogued rolls of microfilm would be unmanageable. In search of a new book topic, he saw a reference in a book on Constitutional history to the cases of Japanese Americans who challenged World War II orders. He decided his next book would focus on how attorneys on both sides of these cases developed strategies and how the Supreme Court dealt with the lawsuits. Beginning his research, Irons met Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig, a researcher for the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). They agreed to share information and began working collaboratively. In the first file from the Justice Department archives he reviewed, Irons discovered a memo in which Edward Ennis, director of the Alien Enemy Control Unit, told Solicitor General Charles Fahy that the government had information refuting a War Department report claiming that Japanese Americans were disloyal. Ennis argued that withholding the information from the U.S. Supreme Court might approximate suppression of evidence. Irons was stunned because he realized that this document revealed government wrongdoing. He uncovered other documents showing that government attorneys engaged in legal misconduct. Citing these documents, Irons testified before the CWRIC and raised the possibility that Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Min Yasui, the three Nisei convicted during World War II for violating the military's orders, might reopen their cases through the coram nobis process. Irons located Hirabayashi and Yasui who agreed to reopen their cases. But Korematsu was hesitant. After Irons visited Korematsu in 1982 and showed him the evidence of the government's misconduct, Korematsu agreed. Irons realized that he could not handle all three cases, and he wanted Japanese Americans to take the lead. So he asked Yasui for the names of West Coast attorneys. Yasui referred him to Nisei attorney Frank Chuman, who in turn referred Irons to Dale Minami, a young Sansei attorney based in Oakland. Minami recruited other attorneys in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland, many of whom were already involved in the movement for Japanese American redress. The attorneys decided to file three petitions in each of the district courts where Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui were originally convicted. Although Irons was not directly involved in the legal teams representing Yasui and Hirabayashi, he became a key member of Korematsu's coram nobis team. He worked with Sansei attorney Lorraine Bannai to coordinate evidence and documents. He traveled to San Francisco weekly during the latter half of 1982 to work on the case, in addition to his full-time teaching responsibilities at UC San Diego. In 1983, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel overturned Korematsu's conviction.

The Balanced Treatment Act

n 1981, Louisiana passed a law titled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" (a.k.a. "The Creationism Act"). The law did not require either creationism or evolution to be taught in public schools, but under the banners of academic freedom and balanced treatment, it did require that the teaching of either be "balanced" by the teaching of its alternative. In Edwards v. Aguillard, a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the Creationism Act, but upheld the concept of "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind.

Harry Laughlin

of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, designed a model eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the intellectually disabled for the purpose of eugenics. This 1924 statute was closely based on Laughlin's model. - expert witness but never even met her and described her very negatively.

Reapportionment - Colegrove v. Green /Baker v. Carr

redrawing district lines in order to favor one party over the other, dilute certain groups' votes. Colegrove v. Green -- (1946) was a United States Supreme Court case. Writing for a 4-3 plurality, Justice Felix Frankfurter held that the federal judiciary had no power to interfere with issues regarding apportionment of state legislatures.[2] The Court held that Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution left to the legislature of each state the authority to establish the time, place, and manner of holding elections for representatives, and that only Congress (and thus not the federal judiciary) could determine whether individual state legislatures had fulfilled their responsibility to secure fair representation for citizens.[3] Baker v. Carr -- (1962) as a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.

Racial Gerrymandering

the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Among other things, the court prohibited a then-common practice among some states of spreading minorities across voting districts, leaving them too few in number in any given district to elect their preferred candidates. The practice became known as "racial gerrymandering."

pregnancy discrimination

the act of discriminating someone in the workplace bc they are pregnant or about to become pregnant - so like getting fired for being pregnant or not being hired for being pregnant - having to sign a contract that says you'll only be hired under the obligation that you don't get pregnant under your time here. being fired after maternity leave, and receiving a pay dock due to pregnancy.

Social Darwinism

the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

Simon-Benet (Stanford - Benet) tests

use of eugenics - intelligence test an individually administered intelligence test that was revised from the original Binet-Simon Scale by Lewis M. Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is now in its fifth edition (SB5) and was released in 2003. It is a cognitive ability and intelligence test that is used to diagnose developmental or intellectual deficiencies in young children. The test measures five weighted factors and consists of both verbal and nonverbal subtests. The five factors being tested are knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, working memory, and fluid reasoning.

"fair game" doctrine

used to describe policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies. Individuals or groups who are "Fair Game" are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible.

Grandfather clause, literacy test, and poll tax

various forms of voting restrictions aimed (neutrally, but honestly not) at blacks. grandfather clause --> statutory or constitutional device enacted by seven Southern states between 1895 and 1910 to deny suffrage to African Americans. It provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867, or their lineal descendants, would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because the former slaves had not been granted the franchise until the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, those clauses worked effectively to exclude black people from the vote but assured the franchise to many impoverished and illiterate whites. literacy test -- unequal bc it made it hella hard for blacks, but hella easy for whites. between the 1850s, [1] and 1960s, literacy tests were also administered to prospective voters and used to disenfranchise racial minorities. poll tax --> payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

Arthur de Gobineau

was a French aristocrat who was best known by his contemporaries as a novelist, diplomat and travel writer but is today most remembered for developing the theory of the Aryan master race and helping to legitimise racism by scientific racist theory and racial demography. Gobineau was an elitist who, in the immediate aftermath of the Revolutions of 1848, wrote a 1400-page book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, in which he claimed that aristocrats were superior to commoners and that they possessed more Aryan genetic traits because of less inbreeding with inferior races (Alpines and Mediterraneans). Gobineau's writings were quickly praised by white supremacist, pro-slavery Americans like Josiah C. Nott and Henry Hotze, who translated his book into English but omitted around 1000 pages of the original book, including those parts that negatively described Americans as a racially mixed population. Gobineau's writings were also influential on prominent anti-Semites such as Richard Wagner, the Romanian far-right politician professor A. C. Cuza and leaders of the Nazi Party, who later edited and re-published his work.

Executive Order 9066

was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones, clearing the way for the deportation of Japanese Americans and Italian-Americans to internment camps.

Brown v. Board (I) and (II) "with all deliberate speed"

was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the Civil Rights Movement,[1] and a model for many future impact litigation cases.[2] However, the decision's fourteen pages did not spell out any sort of method for ending racial segregation in schools, and the Court's second decision in Brown II only ordered states to desegregate "with all deliberate speed". funny bc "with all deliberate speed" took a long ass time NAACP --> lawsuits against sep but equal -- wasn't equal (lacked resources) Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) "separate but equal is inherently unequal." Doll experts - The Clarks Implementation a year later Supreme Court orders desegregation "with all deliberate speed" - oxymoron

Equal Rights Amendment

was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. The ERA has always been highly controversial regarding the meaning of equality for women. It was "feminist against feminist", said historian Judith Sealander; the result was the eventual defeat of the ERA.[1] Middle-class women generally were supportive. Those speaking for the working class were strongly opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and hours. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives. Congress had set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Five states rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment and so it did not become part of the Constitution. Several organizations continue to work for the adoption of the ERA.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States January-February 1930. Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his "clear and present danger" opinion for a unanimous Court in the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, and is one of the most influential American common law judges, honored during his lifetime in Great Britain as well as the United States. Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90 years, making him the oldest Justice in the Supreme Court's history. He also served as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and was Weld Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, of which he was an alumnus. - judge in Buck v. Bell - "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." - said this in the majority opinion for buck v. bell

Stephen J. Gould

was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In 1996 Gould was also appointed as the Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University, where he divided his time teaching there and at Harvard. Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972.[2] The theory proposes that most evolution is characterized by long periods of evolutionary stability, which is infrequently punctuated by swift periods of branching evolution. The theory was contrasted against phyletic gradualism, the popular idea that evolutionary change is marked by a pattern of smooth and continuous change in the fossil record.[3]

Richard Neustaudt, Presidential Power

weakness of president to have to request the military to escort the children to school Key Point: "Presidential power is the power to persuade." (11) Presidents are expected to do much more than their authority allows them to do. Persuasion and bargaining are the means that presidents use to influence policy. Not only do presidents need to bargain to influence other branches of government (particularly Congress), but presidents also must bargain to influence the executive branch itself; cabinet secretaries, agency heads, and individual bureaucrats all have leverage that they can use against the president, requiring presidents to persuade even the executive branch, not merely command it. Neustadt's conclusion is a good summary: "Effective influence for the man in the White House stems from three related sources: first are the bargaining advantages inherent in his job with which to persuade other men that what he wants of them is what their own responsibilities require them to do. Second are the expectations of those other men regarding his ability and will to use the various advantages they think he has. Third are those men's estimates of how his public views him and of how their publics may view them if they do what he wants. In short, his power is the product of his vantage points in government, together with his reputation in the Washington community and his prestige outside. "A President, himself, affects the flow of power from these sources, though whether they flow freely or run dry he never will decide alone. He makes his personal impact by the things he says and does. Accordingly, his choices of what he should say and do, and how and when, are his means to conserve and tap the sources of his power. Alternatively, choices are the means by which he dissipates his power. The outcome, case by case, will often turn on whether he perceives his risk in power terms and takes account of what he sees before he makes his choice. A President is so uniquely situated and his power so bound up with the uniqueness of his place, that he can count on no one else to be perceptive for him" (150).

The Scottsboro boys

were nine black teenagers accused in Alabama of raping two White American women on a train in 1931. The landmark set of legal cases from this incident dealt with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and disruptive mobs. It is frequently cited as an example of a miscarriage of justice in the United States legal system. The case was first returned to the lower court and the judge allowed a change of venue, moving the retrials to Decatur, Alabama. Judge Horton was appointed. During the retrials, one of the alleged victims admitted fabricating the rape story and asserted that none of the Scottsboro Boys touched either of the white women. The jury found the defendants guilty, but the judge set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. The judge was replaced and the case tried under a judge whose rulings went against the defense. For the third time a jury—now with one black American member—returned a guilty verdict. The case was sent to the US Supreme Court on appeal. It ruled that African Americans had to be included on juries, and ordered retrials.[5] Charges were finally dropped for four of the nine defendants. Sentences for the rest ranged from 75 years to death. All but two served prison sentences; all were released or escaped by 1946. One was shot in prison by a guard and permanently disabled. Two escaped, were later charged with other crimes, convicted, and sent back to prison. Clarence Norris, the oldest defendant and the only one sentenced to death, "jumped parole" in 1946 and went into hiding. He was found in 1976 and pardoned by Governor George Wallace, by which time the case had been thoroughly analyzed and shown to be an injustice. Norris later wrote a book about his experiences. The last surviving defendant died in 1989. "The Scottsboro Boys," as they became known, were defended by many in the North and attacked by many in the South. The case is now widely considered a miscarriage of justice, highlighted by use of all-white juries. Black Americans in Alabama had been disenfranchised since the turn of the century and thus were generally disqualified from jury duty. The case has been explored in many works of literature, music, theatre, film and television. On November 21, 2013, Alabama's parole board voted to grant posthumous pardons to the three Scottsboro Boys who had not been pardoned or had their convictions overturned

White primary

were primary elections held in the Southern states of the United States of America in which only white voters were permitted to participate. White primaries were established by the state Democratic Party units or by state legislatures in many Southern states after 1890. The white primary was one method used by white conservative Democrats to disenfranchise most black and other minority voters. They also passed laws and constitutions with provisions to raise barriers to voter registration, completing disenfranchisement from 1890 to 1908 in all states of the former Confederacy. The Texas legislature passed a law in 1923 that delegated authority to state conventions of political parties to make rules for their primaries. The Democratic Party banned black and Mexican-American minorities from participating in their party primaries. This was the dominant party in Southern states, effectively holding the only competitive contests. The United States Supreme Court heard three Texas cases related to white primaries in 1927, 1932, and 1935. In the 1927 and 1932 Texas white primary cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying that state laws related to establishing a white primary violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Texas changed its law in response, delegating authority to the political parties to establish their own conditions for primaries. In Grovey v. Townsend (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that the practice was constitutional, as it was administered by the Democratic Party, which was a private, not a state institution. In 1944, the Supreme Court case ruled against the Texas white primary system in Smith v. Allwright.[1] In Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to the 1923 Texas state law. It ruled that the law violated the protections of the Constitution because the state allowed a discriminatory rule to be established by the Democratic Party. After the case, most Southern states ended their selectively inclusive white primaries. They retained other devices of disenfranchisement, particularly in terms of barriers to voter registration, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. These generally survived legal challenges as they applied to all potential voters. But in practice they were administered in a discriminatory manner by white officials that resulted in most blacks being excluded from the political system in the South until after the 1960s, no matter their level of education or property ownership.

Coram nobis petition

what they used in the Korematsu case is the name of a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error which did not appear in the records of the original judgement's proceedings and would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.[1] The term "coram nobis" is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full name, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence".