United States Supreme Court Cases

Brown v. Board of Education; 1954.

Facts

• Racial integration by the end of WWII to the Fair Employment Practices Commission and the desegregation of armed forces by President Truman
• The Framework on segregation was established in 1896 by court Plessy v. Ferguson because of challenges from the NAACP.
• Linda Brown, an 8-year-old African American girl was denied to attend an elementary school only 5 blocks from her home in Kansas. Instead she was assigned to a school for non-white about 21 blocks away from her home.
• Linda Brown filled for a lawsuit to the district and appealed to the Supreme Court

Issues

• Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of equal educational opportunities?

Arguments for Linda Brown

• Segregation based on race is harmful to African Americans
• Law implied that African Americans were inferior to whites
• Violated the 14th amendment for equal protection under law led by Thurgood Marshall

Arguments for Board of Education

• School is equal every way and blacks had more money
• Jim Crow laws (separate but equal)
• 10th amendment (states right)

Decision

• Brown wins unanimous

Rationale

• Inferiority between minorities
• Segregated school was no longer and overturned by Plessy v. Ferguson.

Loving V. Virginia.

Facts

• In 1958, two Virginian Mildred Jeter, black women, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. When they returned to Virginia, they were charged with violating the states law, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and jailed for a year. The judge said that he would suspend their sentence if they left Virginia and didn’t come back for 25 years. They filed for a motion in the state trial court to throw out the judgment. The sentence given in Virginia stated that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act violated the 14th amendment. On Jan. 22, 1965, the trial judge denied the motion to throw out the sentences on the Lovings and then the Lovings then appealed to the Supreme Court of A1ppeals of Virginia. This court upheld the Constitutionality of anti-miscegenation and affirmed the convictions. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issues

• Did Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violate Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment?

Arguments for Loving

• Virginia miscegenation violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
• By not allowing them to marry, it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment

Arguments for Virginia.

• 1955 decision in Naim v. Naim, integrity of its citizens and to prevent corruption of blood, obliteration of racial pride.
• Marriage regulation should be left by exclusive state control by the 10th amendment
• The Framers didn’t intend the 14ht amendment to make state miscegenation laws unconstitutional
• Laws forbid both whites and blacks from marrying each other

Decision and rationale

• Chief Justice Earl Warren said that they were allowed because of the race and racial classifications violate the meaning of the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause

Regents of the University of California V. Bakke, 1978.

Facts

• In 1973, Allan Bakke applied to the University of California at Davis for Medical and got turned down because he missed the filings deadline and also in the following year. Since the medical school policy set aside 16 out of 100 places each years entering class for “disadvantage” applications. Bakkes went to court when he found out about this. Superior court of Yolo County agreed with Bakke but the trial court refuse his admission to medical school because he failed to prove that he would have been admitted to the school had there been no set aside programs. On appeal, the California Supreme Court also held the medical schools admission program unconstitutional and it order Bakke to be admitted next year. Then the school then carried the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arguments for Bakke

• Refusal to admit Bakke violates the 14th amendment Equal Protections Clause cause that action (1) based on policy built on racial quotas and (2) amounted to reverse discrimination
• The schools admission policy violates the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids race-base discrimination in programs receiving federal financial aid

Arguments for Regents of the University of California.

• People of minority background had disadvantages from the day they were born and so must be afforded greater protection under the 14th amendment
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 intends to overcome past discrimination

Issues

• Should universities have the right to use admissions quotas?

Decision

• Bake wins

Marbury V. Madison

Facts

• Marbury was one of the “midnight justices.”.
• Madison was the Republican secretary of State
• Madison found appointment documents scattered on his desk on the morning he took office and presented them to President Jefferson, whom ordered him not to deliver them
• Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission; Marbury had asked the court to issue a writ of mandamus, ordering the secretary of state to surrender the appointment

Issues

• Did Marbury have the right to his commission, since it was signed and sealed but not delivered?
• Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to Secretary of State Madison?
• Did the Supreme Court have authority to act under Section XIII of the Judiciary Act of 1789?

Arguments for Marbury

• Since his commission was signed and sealed, he had the entitled right to his appointment
• Since Madison was clearly not doing his proper duty as a public official, the Court should issue a writ to compel him to do so

Arguments for Madison

• Commissions were based on a law that had been repealed at a later date by congress
• The law was strictly political move by the Federalists to retain control of one part of the government, and was, therefore, clearly improper

Decision
- A unanimous vote (6-0).