Civil+Rights

Landmark Supreme Court cases researchtoc

For the following court decisions regarding civil rights do the following: 1. Explain the basic facts of the case. Include who the plaintiff and defendant are. 2. What was the Supreme Court’s decision? 3. In making its decision, on what precedence and/or constitutional principles did the court rely? Did the decision overturn previous precedence? 4. Was there a concurring opinion or dissenting opinion? What was the reasoning for these? 5. What lasting impact did this case decision have on civil rights in this country?

// Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka //
This case began in 1951, when thirteen parents filed a class-action lawsuit against the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education. The plaintiff, Oliver Brown (who represented the parents), challenged the Board of Education's (the defendant's) assertion that its practice of racially separating schools was not "separate but equal"--that African Americans received an inferior education than whites. For example, Brown's daughter, Linda, was denied enrollment in the school closest to her house and was instead forced to attend a school six blocks and a bus ride away.

This Supreme Court case was actually an amalgamation of five cases from lower jurisdictions which sought the same goal. These cases came form Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown, declaring that it was unconstitutional to segregate public schools. The court overturned a previous case decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled that "separate but equal" treatment of public places was constitutional. The court also ruled that such treatment was in violation of the 14th Amendment, which gives citizens of all races equal protection under the laws.

The decision was unanimous, under Chief Justice Douglas. This case had the lasting effect of ending segregation throughout the United States. Although many citizens and politicians resisted the ruling--for example, Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia tried to close the schools rather than desegregate them--but the decision held.

==//Bowers v. Hardwick In 1985, Michael Hardwick was caught by a police officer engaging in homosexual sodomy and was charged with violating a Georgia law prohibiting such behavior. Hardwick proceeded to challenge the Constitutionality of the statute in the Federal District Court, in which the case was dismissed since the court said that Hardwick did not state a claim. He appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and they ruled that the Georgia law was unconstitutional. Michael J Bowers, the Attorney general of Georgia and defendant, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, thus making Hardwick the defendant. //== The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bowers. They stated that the Constitution did not protect such acts of sodomy and the states had the right to make such law. They argued that the Court had the right to protect the rights not easily identifiable in the Constitution and used the rulings in Palko v Connecticut in 1937 and Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.

There were both concurring and dissenting opinions. The concurring opinions all agreed that there is no such thing as a “fundamental” right to homosexual sodomy. The dissenting opinion stated that this case went beyond the question of sodomy and was more of a question of privacy. They stated it was more specifically the “right to be __//**let**//__ alone”.

The effect of this case was that it questioned how many rights homosexual people really have. If it stays private, why do people have to care? Second, it raised the question of privacy. Again, if nobody is making it public, why should it matter to the legal system if it remains a private matter? __//**This case was overturned by the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision in which the court ruled that a federal right to privacy extends to same-sex partners**//__

//Gratz v. Bollinger//
The University of Michigan used a point system to rank applicants during the admission process. The points ranked up all the way to 150 points in which 100 points were needed by an applicant in order to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans an automatic 20-point bonus on the scale. This can be compared to a perfect SAT score which was given only 12 points. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher are both Caucasians who were denied admission to the university. With Center for Individual Rights, they filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan and Lee Bollinger, the defendant.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of the racial point system in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. The Court reasoned that the automatic 20 points given to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race was not narrowly tailored and did not provide the individual consideration __//**and in effect, it made the factor of race decisive for virtually every candidate. However, the court did uphold the general use of "race-conscious" admissions**//__

This decision did overturn a similar case called Grutter v. Bollinger.

//Korematsu v. United States//
  //Took place in 1944 during the time of World War II. Executive Order 9066 was initiated which forced Americans of Japanese decent to got to internment camps to be relocated. This case resulted when Korematsu refused to leave. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The point of this case was to check the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066.//

//The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order 9066 was indeed constitutional and that civil rights could be infringed on in times of crisis if it benefits the general public as a whole. “The need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s rights.”//

//The court looked at Executive Order 9066 and ruled that it was legal. Also, the court looked at the previous precedence set in Hirabayashi v. United States about limiting rights of minorities in times of war. Justice Hugo Black wrote he majority opinion and he heavily sided with the precedence of limiting rights during times of crisis.//

//There was both a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion. Justice Frankfurter wrote the concurring opinion which said that he said it was legal not because of the precedence of Hirabayahi v United States but by that a military order is constitutional in itself. They ruled that the constitutionality of the order was legal __**and that it was not racism but a military decision to keep the country safe**__, so Korematsu’s right could be infringed on. The dissenting opinion was based on the fact that 3 justices believed that the decision was based on flagrant racism. They believed that Korematsu shouldn’t have his rights removed. He is an American and himself personally should not pay for the crimes of his race.// //This case basically said that forms of racism were legal and sometimes necessary for safety. This court case set back the fight for civil rights of minorities. The case was eventually ruled unconstitutional and overruled. Korematsu was exempted of all charges against him. //

> >

// Plessy v. Ferguson //
Plessy v Ferguson was a court case caused after a 30 year old man named Homer Plessy sat in a “white” car of the East Louisiana Railroad. In Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy argued that the East Louisiana Railroad had denied him his rights as a US citizen. The judge, John Howard Ferguson, said that it was legal because they can regulate railroad companies as long within their state boundaries. Afterwards, Plessy applied for an appeal to the state of Louisiana yet it was still upheld. The Supreme Court stated that states are within their legal right to have “separate, but equal” rules in public accommodations. They argued that these “separate, but equal” laws did not imply any racial inferiority mainly because the Constitution did not have any prejudice against any race and was “color blind.” They upheld the previous decision made by Ferguson. It was a concurring opinion mainly because neither of the judges thought that the decision violated rights under the 14th amendment. As a result of the decision, Plessy v Ferguson set a pretense for other states to institute their own “separate, but equal” laws and make okay. The Deep South began to move towards racial segregation practices, which would stay around until the civil rights movements of the mid 20th century. __//**This was overturned by Brown vs Board of Education**//__

//Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools//
North Carolina was one of the more average southern states, in which its resistance to integration was rather weak. After Brown v. Board of Education, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system implemented a federal court-approved plan to desegregate schools. This plan demanded geographic zoning of schools while permitting voluntary student transfers. This plan, however, was not effective because of the 24,000 African American students in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district, 14,000 attended schools with at least 99% of the student body being African American. So the NAACP brought the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education to the district court. The NAACP took the case on behalf of James Swann and nine other families, but chose to use Swann because his father was a theology teacher, and was unlikely to be economically burdened by local attacks. So James Swann was the plaintiff while Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education was the defendant. In this district court, Dr. John Finger came up with a new plan that included busing of African American students to suburban schools in Charlotte. Although the school board adopted the Finger Plan, the plan was considered unreasonable by the district courts. A federal court of appeals supported the district court’s ruling, so the case reached the Supreme Court.

For this case, the Supreme Court decided on the ruling unanimously. The court upheld district court's ruling stating that acceptable solutions regarding the problem of segregated school systems were changing attendance zones and busing students to different schools to maintain racial balance within the schools. The only exception to this solution was if busing would hurt a child’s health or education, then it would be banned. The Court basically said that school districts have broad powers to assure a unitary school system.

In the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, the Supreme Court decided racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The Swann case dealt with how school districts such as the district of Charlotte-Mecklenburg in North Carolina could reconstruct their attendance zones to comply with the Brown decision.

This decision was highly discouraged by many white southerners, but the decision affected the school systems of many United States cities. This busing technique was adopted in other parts of the United States, and played a huge role in the integration of other public schools. However, later decades endured criticism about busing, not only from whites, but also from African Americans. They said that busing required African American students to endure long traveling to and from school. Busing continued into the late 1990s in many major cities.