DON’T FORGET

Review the first day power point!! Know the different tests (strict scrutiny, middle

level review, mere rationality review) and different classes (suspect, quasi/semi-suspect etc, and which groups included in each)! Note – Court refers to classes under mere rationality

review as either semi-suspect or quasi-suspect, we have used both in class which is why it says quasi/semi-suspect)

Understand the example given about the carpenter and how all 3 tests could be used (in the power point)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Issue: Whether Scott could be a citizen of the US and therefore receive all protections of constitution? Whether Missouri compromise was unconstitutional?

Decision: No; Yes. Significance: No longer good law,

overturned by passing of 13, 14, 15 Amendments

Precedent: NA

The Civil Rights Cases, 1883

Issue: Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional (CRA made it a federal crime to deny on basis of race any individual’s equal access to inns, public transportation, and other public places of accommodations)

Decision: Yes Significance: First time SC says 14th Amendment

rights applicable only where state action is present. No longer good law, overturned in 1964 & 1965 by Civil Rights Act which included eating establishments and other public places of accomodations

Precedent: NA

Plessy v. Ferguson

Issue: Whether LA law violated the 14th Amendment?

Decision: No Significance: This case formulated and

upheld the “separate but equal” doctrine Precedents: Roberts v. City of Boston-

ruled segregated schools were constitutional

Shelley v. Kramer

Issue: Whether the restrictive covenant, restricting the sale of homes to minorities, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes Significance: Still good law, you can have

restrictive covenants, but they won’t be enforced by the Courts

Precedent: NA

Brown v. BOE

Issue: Whether segregation of races in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, unanimous! Significance: Precedent: Sweatt v. Painter –ruled that

segregated law schools were not equal because did not provide equal educational opportunities

Bolling v. Sharpe

Issue: Whether the segregation of public schools based on race was a violation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment?

Decision: Yes Significance: Still good law, applied

Brown v. BOE to the federal governments Precedent: Brown v. BOE

Brown v. BOE, II

Issue: How should Brown I be implemented? By when do schools need to be integrated?

Decision: Schools must integrate “with all deliberate speed”

Significance: Decision was apology for not setting precise guidelines as well as a recognition for the limitation of judicial power

Precedent: Brown v. BOE

Milliken v. Bradley

Issue: Whether the multidistrict desegregation plan was an appropriate remedy to the de facto segregation in the Detroit area?

Decision: No, it was not Significance: Still good law, court defines difference

btwn de facto and de jure segregation. Not the job of the courts to fight de facto segregation, only de jure segregation.

Precedent: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg—federal courts may not order a school board to adjust the racial composition of any of its schools unless there has been a finding that there was de jure segregation

Regents of University of California v. Bakke

Issue: Whether University of California’s quota system used for admissions violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes Significance: even though quota system

unconstitutional, it upheld affirmative action, also noted that affirmative action plans subject to strict scrutiny

Precedent: NA

Grutter v. Bollinger

Issue: Whether law school’s consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions was a violation of the EP clause?

Decision: No, was constitutional Significance: Law school’s best interest to

create diverse student body, upheld Bakke, recognized benefits of affirmative action

Precedent: Bakke

Gratz v. Bollinger

Issue: Whether UM use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates equal protection clause of 14th Amendment? (used point system, people assigned automatic 20 points)

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: upheld Bakke but no factor

can be solely based on race Precedent: Bakke, Grutter

Affirmative Action cases

Remember 4 things we wrote down that help us in analyzing cases and state of law after Grutter & Gratz

Race conscious admissions measures will receive strict scrutiny, and thus must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objective

Pursuit of diversity in student body can be compelling objective

A one at a time student evaluation where race is merely one factor among various ones is sufficiently narrow

Mechanical approaches resembling quotas such as automatically awarding an applicant a fixed number of points towards admissions based on race are not narrowly tailored and therefore violate EP

Parents involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District

Issue: Whether the Seattle school district’s policy of using race as a “tie breaker” to help determine which high school students should go to violates EP clause of the 14th Amendment.

Decision: Yes, policy unconstitutional Significance: Affirmative action cannot be

applied in school system with race as a determinative factor

Precedent: Bakke, Gratz, Grutter

Frontiero v. Richardson

Brief Facts: Woman in air force, husband had to prove he was dependent on her before he could get benefits, men in air force, their wives were presumed to be dependent

Issue: Whether the difference in benefit treatments btwn men and women (for their spouses) violates due process clause of 5th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: While gender given strict scrutiny in this

case, court later settled on middle level review Precedent: Reed v. Reed – overturned a law that gave

fathers of deceased mandatory preference over mothers in administering deceased estate bc gave preferences to males without regard to their individual qualifications

Craig v. Boren

Issue: Whether gender-based difference regarding sale of non-intoxicating beer constitutes a denial to males 18-20 years old of the EP of laws of 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: Court permanently settled

on intermediate level of scrutiny for gender-based classifications, regardless of whether they are benign.

Precedent: NA

Shapiro v. Thompson

Issue: Whether the statute denying welfare benefits to residents who have not resided in the state for at least one year violates 14th amendment equal protection clause?

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: strict scrutiny applies to

fundamental rights, right to travel is fundamental right

Precedent: NA

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Issue: Whether the mentally retarded should be regarded as a quasi/semi-suspect class? Whether the city ordinance violated the EP clause of the 14th Amendment?

Decision: No, mentally retarded not quasi-suspect class; yes, city ordinance violated EP

Significance: SC felt best way to protect the mentally retarded was to not classify them as quasi-suspect

Precedent: NA

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Issue: Whether Mississippi statute which excluded males from enrolling in state-supported professional nursing school violated the EP clause of 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: Still good law, very narrow

ruling, Court’s reasoning based on nursing profession and fact that majority in profession were women and that had been true historically

Precedent: NA

Lawrence v. Texas

Issue: Whether law prohibiting sodomy was unconstitutional under due process clause of 14th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, unconstitutional Significance: recognized equal rights of

homosexuals and court recognized that there has been history of discrimination, trying to reverse some of that

Precedent: Romer v. Evans

US v. Windsor

Issue: Whether DOMA violates due process clause of 5th Amendment?

Decision: Yes, DOMA unconstitutional Significance: declared DOMA

unconstitutional, Federal govt must recognize same sex marriages if state permits it

Precedent: Lawrence v. Texas

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Issue: Whether Prop 8 violates EP clause of 14th Amendment?

Decision: Court didn’t answer this, Court found petitioners lacked standing to bring the case

Significance: Allowed lower court’s ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional to stand, leaves big question of whether law prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitional

Precedent: NA