American Legal History
alisong
14thAmendment-EqualProtection.pptxAmerican Legal History II
14th Amendment - Equal Protection
14th Amendment (1868)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Equal Protection - Background
From “created equal” to “equal protection”
Laws that made distinctions based on race or color?
Goal → Destroy the black codes
Congressional (CR Acts) versus Constitutional non-discrimination.
Some acceptance of separate but equal at adoption.
What type of equality → Civil or Social? Political?
Integrated Transportation? → RR Co. v. Brown (1873)
Education?
Leveling
Leap of Black Education
Rational Basis test of discriminatory laws
Equal Protection - Background
Would “separate but equal” spread?
New England view of schools in the minority
What if whole communities accepted?
Miscegenation?
Framers of 14th on enforcement via legislation.
To what extent was the equal protection of the laws upheld in the United States by the turn of the 20th century?
US v. Harris (1883)
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
US v. Cruickshank (1872)
What was at stake in the judicial interpretation of the equal protection clause?
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Context
Segregation, Separate Facilities, & Jim Crow Laws
1890 - Separate Car Act
Committee of Citizens
Homer Plessy → Test Case
East Louisiana Railroad Involvement
Plessy initially convicted.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Issues and Decision
Does the Separate Car Act violate the 14th Amendment?
7 - 1 Decision:
14th Intended to bring forth absolute equality
Separate did not mean inferior
Segregation did not mean unlawful discrimination.
Era of “Separate But Equal”
Implications:
Segregation entrenched, protected at the highest legal level
Segregation flows north
Excerpts →
Lum v. Rice (1927) - Context & Decision
Chinese Exclusion Acts
Labor “replacement” in the South → Mississippi
Immigration Quotas
Rise of the KKK and xenophobia
Unanimous Decision:
Available segregated schools?
Chinese classified among “colored races”
Within discretion of the state
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Context
Plessy (1896)
Education → Separate but Equal
Mendez v. Westminster (1947)
Social Science & Inferiority
Scholarly Work:
“The Race Question”
Clark Doll Test
Cold War American image.
Kenneth and Mamie Clark Doll Experiment
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - Issues and Decision
13 Families → NAACP Recruitment
Attempted enrollment
Male at the head of filing
District Ct. finds for Board, upholding Plessy
Supreme Ct.
Review of Brown and four other cases
Justice Department’s Amicus Brief
Major Question: Did the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibit the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks?
Unanimous Decision:
Stalling and Building Consensus
Psychological, Social, and International
No State Shall . . .
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) - Context
Inclusivity and Diversity
Eliminate discrimination → Active Desegregation
Integration methods left to the states w/ lower court supervision
Civil Rights Act of 1964 → Title VI
Public Schools vs. Public Universities → Highly Selective, Graduate, Professions?
Affirmative Action Programs
1970 → Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE
1974 → DeFunis v. Odegaard (1970 - 1974)
Civil Rights Act of 1964 → Title VI
Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) - Issues and Decision
Allan Bakke - Medical School Applicant
Twice Rejected from UC Davis
“Slots” vs. Scores
Bakke filed suit
Major Question → Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
8 - 1 Decision (Plurality Opinion):
Quotas →
Race as criteria →
Bush v. Gore (2000) - Context
2000 Presidential Election
George Bush
Al Gore
Narrow margin
Late/Contested Florida reports
Paper Ballots and Hanging/Dimpled Chads
9000 in Miami-Dade
FL Supreme Court → Recount
Bush v. Gore (2000) - Issues and Decision
Bush and Cheney appeal to Supreme Court
Stay of FL Supreme Ct. decision
Review and stay on 12/9
Do manual recounts violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution?
7 - 2 Decision:
Equal Protection
Excerpts
5 - 4 Decision:
Recount Date
12/18 → Electors
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) - Context
Federalism and Marriage Law
Marriage Bans
Refusal to recognize other jurisdictions . . .
Baker v. Nelson (1971)
DOMA (1996)
US v. Windsor (2013)
Civil Rights Support
Over 1000 rights and protections
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
State efforts
Public Opinion →
Since 2011
Since 2015
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America by state/district/territory:
Majority support same-sex marriage — 80 to 89%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 70 to 79%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 60 to 69%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
Plurality support same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Plurality oppose same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Majority oppose same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
No recent polling data
State laws regarding same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell v. Hodges
Same-sex marriage legal
Same-sex marriage ban overturned, decision stayed indefinitely
Same-sex marriage banned where federal circuit court has found similar bans unconstitutional
Same-sex marriage banned
Same-sex marriage legality complicated
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) - Issues and Decision
Varying suits
Challenge state laws
Lower court inconsistency
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
5 - 4 Decision:
Excerpts
How did the evolving judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment change the relationship between state and federal governments?
