de facto segregation
Racial segregation that occurs not as a result of deliberate intentions but because of past social and economic conditions and residential patterns.
de jure segregation
Segregation promoted by laws such as voter registration literacy tests. NAACP leadership and action Their biggest win was in the Brown v. Board of Education case. Thurgood Marshall Argued the Brown v. Board case and later became a Supreme Court Justice. Racial segregation that occurs because of laws or administrative decisions by public agencies.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
federal law that increased government supervision of local election practices, suspended the use of literacy tests to prevent people (usually African Americans) from voting, and expanded government efforts to register voters.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 is the cornerstone of our employment discrimination laws. It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Act made racial, religious, and sex discrimination by employers illegal and gave the government the power to enforce all laws governing civil rights, including desegregation of schools and public places.
1. It outlawed arbitrary discrimination in voter registration
2. It barred discrimination in public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, whose operations affect interstate commerce
3. It authorized the federal government to bring suits to desegregate public schools and facilities.
4. It expanded the power of the civil rights commission and extended its life
5. It provided for the withholding of federal funds from programs administered in a discriminatory manner
6. It established the right of equality of opportunity in employment.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Overturned Bowers v Hardwick and declared a Texas law banning sodomy to be unconstitutional. A victory for both gay rights and privacy rights.
United States v. Virginia
Facts of the Case:
The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.
Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
No. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Virginia failed to support its claim that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity because it did not show that VMI's male-only admissions policy was created or maintained in order to further educational diversity. Furthermore, Virginia's VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets. Finally, the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" between VMI and VWIL was misplaced. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit's "substantive comparability" standard was a displacement of the Court's more exacting standard, requiring that "all gender-based classifications today" be evaluated with "heightened scrutiny." When evaluated with such "heightened scrutiny," Virginia's plan to create the VWIL would not provide women with the same opportunities as VMI provides its men and so it failed to meet requirements of the equal protection clause.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
1978 supreme court decision holding that a state university could not admit less qualified individuals solely because of their race., Constitutional issue: 14th amendment, Their decision: Special admissions program violated equal protection clause, "preferring members of anyone group" is unconstitutional
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
1954 supreme court ruling reversing the policy of segregation, declaring that separate can never be equal and a year later ordered the integration of all public schools with all deliberate speed society became less racist, unanimously overturned Plessy v Ferguson; racial segregation in schools declared unconstitutional
Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896), Constitutional Issue is the 13th and .14th Amendment Challenging the Jim Crow laws, Supreme Courts Decision is 13th Amendment legal distinction between the races did not destroy the equality of the races and the 14th Court cannot make race socially equal
Dred Scott v. Sanford
1857 Supreme Court case which ruled that slaves are not citizens but are property, affirmed that property cannot be interfered with by Congress, slaves do not become free if they travel to free territories or states, fueled abolitionist movement, hailed as victory for the south; also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional 149
Allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state, Maine to enter the union as a free state, prohibited slavery north of latitude 36˚ 30' within the Louisiana Territory (1820)