Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 13 – Discrimination
Short Answer Questions:
1. What effect did the Court’s decision in Scott v. Sandford have on the nation? Give at least
2.
How did Scott v Sandford set the stage for the debate over discrimination over the next
3. How did the South respond to the passage of the “equality amendments” and to
4. What did the majority opinion of the Court consider to be “the underlying fallacy” of the
plaintiff’s argument in Plessy v. Ferguson? Is this argument intuitive? Why or why not?
5. What was Justice Harlan’s argument in his Plessy dissent? Why is it considered a classic
8. What effect did WWII have on the movement towards equality for African Americans?
9. What did the LDF seek in Sweat v. Painter if Texas was unwilling to admit black
students to its law school? Was this an effect strategy? Why or why not? C, K, An 616-
12. What prompted critics to argue that the Warren Court’s decision in Brown v. Board did
14. What strategy did the Court lay out in Brown II for implementing desegregation? Was
16. Give two examples of how the justices continued to force the issue of desegregation after
17. Why did the Supreme Court uphold desegregation plans in Swann? What powers did the
19. How did the Court, in Meredith, use Brown to justify its decision? Do you agree with this
20. Why does the Court have three different tests for evaluating claims of discrimination?
21. Does the rational basis rest always mean the state will win against an equal protection
22. What rational basis did the Court use to rule in favor of the Transit Authority in Beazer?
What justification must government generally use to prove it has a rational basis for a
23. Even though it applied the rational basis test in Cleburne why did the Court rule in favor
24. How did the Court rule in favor of Evans in Romer despite applying rational basis to
25. In Loving v. Virginia, how did the majority opinion of the Court respond to Virginia’s
argument that the case did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because whites and
27. What is affirmative action and how did it begin as a policy within the federal
government? Should the Court use rational basis or strict scrutiny to decide cases
28. What rationale did Justice Powell use in Bakke? Do you agree with his analysis, or do
you find the analysis of another opinion in the case more convincing? Justify your
30. Why did the Court uphold the 10 percent rule in Fullilove but struck the 30 percent rule
31. Why was Adarand such an important turning point in the fight over affirmative action?
32. In the two University of Michigan affirmative action cases, why did the Court rule
against the University of Michigan in Gratz v. Bollinger but for the University in Grutter
34. How did the Court initially view traditional gender roles? Give examples from early court
35. Explain why the Court was willing to allow race to be a factor in Grutter but not in
37. Why is Craig v. Boren such an important case for sex discrimination law? Did the Court
38. Give two examples of how the Court has applied intermediate scrutiny. Does it always
39. What rationale did the Court use to strike VMI’s single sex discrimination policy? Were
42. What standard did Brennan use to justify striking one-year requirement laws to get
43. What Equal Protection test did the majority of the Court use in San Antonio Independent
44. Why might a litigant in an age discrimination case have a harder time winning his or her
45. What did the Court say is the difference between the discrimination in Moose Lodge and
Multiple Choice Questions:
1. What Supreme Court Justice argued the “Constitution is colorblind,” in his dissent in Plessy v.
A. The Court ruled in favor of the University of Texas Law School based on the
“separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy.
3. In Brown II, the Court said that the primary duty of implementing the decision and ending
4. By 1960, six years after Brown I, roughly what percentage of black students in Southern states
attended schools with white students? K 626
C. Judicial rulings do not constitute state action, and thus do not violate the 14th
Amendment.
D. Restrictive covenants, even when the state is involved, are always constitutional.
6. What Amendment, known as the Equal Rights Amendment, states, “Equality of rights under
the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex?”
7. What future Supreme Court Justice argued before the Court in Reed v. Reed? K 670
8. In Craig v. Boren, what test did a majority of the Court agree on for examining sex
9. According to the book, what is the category of litigation in which the Court has been less
10. Which of the following statements is true? C, An various
A. Although federal laws prohibit various forms of discrimination based on race and sex,
no law explicitly protects homosexuals.
11. In discrimination cases based on economic status, what test has the Court used when a
12. What little-used clause of the Constitution did the Court use in part to justify its decision in
D. The Court said the rational basis test should be used in all cases involving non-
citizens.
14. On what grounds did Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun disagree with
15. Which of the following characteristics makes an affirmative action or minority set-aside
16. What standard did the Court use to decide Meredith and PICS? K 631
Essay Questions:
1. There are some who argue that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause simply
requires states to prohibit discrimination. Others argue that states need to take active, positive,
and remedial steps to compensate for the effects of past discrimination. How have different
governmental actors attempted to actively make up for past discrimination? How has the Court
responded to these efforts over the years? How have different points of view on the Court been
2. Since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has been asked to figure
out what kinds of discrimination violate the Constitution. First, what specific part of the
Amendment applies to discrimination? Second, since the passage of the amendment, how has
the Court’s interpretation of this part of the amendment and race discrimination more generally
changed, if at all? What factors do you think have been important in the Court’s decision
making to either cause it to change course or maintain the status quo? In your essay, you need to
bring in the cases on discrimination that we have read and/or discussed in class to support your
argument. Please do not simply write a chronological summary of the cases, however. Instead,
your answer should be an essay and you should bring in detail about the specific cases to
Hypothetical Question:
Bayport University (a publicly run university) has a stringent non-discrimination policy which
includes penalties for discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual
orientation. In 2005 a group of students from the campus Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian, and
Transgendered (GBLT) student association asked the University to include transgendered
individuals to be added to the list of groups protected from discrimination. The students sought
such action because, as one member of the GLBT community put it, there is an “attitude of
discrimination and prejudice regarding transgender issues,” at the school, particularly within the
administration. The university responded by arguing that, “Bayport is a safe and supportive
place for people of all walks of life, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion, or
gender.” The dean of students was also quoted as saying that “no discrimination or harassment
will be tolerated.” Ultimately, the university did not add transgendered individuals to its list of
protected groups.
The current case stems from a controversy that arose during the time the GBLT community was
focused on changing university policy. Mary Weather, a biological female who identifies as
male and has begun taking hormones as part of his gender transition, was on a waiting list for on-
campus housing. The director of campus housing informed Weather that should student housing
become available, it would be with a female roommate. At one point, Weather requested to live
with a male friend, but the campus has a strict policy against opposite sex living arrangements.
The administration argued that the problem would simply “go away” because Weather was not
guaranteed on-campus housing due to his high lottery number. However, Weather also alleges
that he has repeatedly been treated disrespectfully by a several administrators and staff
throughout his attempts to secure appropriate housing, including the president who informed him
the university “has no interest in helping a transgendered student find housing.”
Weather sued the university for its discriminatory practice but lost at trial. On appeal, however,
the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court, holding that, people from the GBLT deserve the same
protections as everyone else who attends a public university. Bayport appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court asking it to add transgendered people to the class of citizens protect by the strict
scrutiny test. If you were a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and this case came before you,
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Relevant Case Facts: An 1890 Louisiana law ordered the separation of races on all railroads.
The law was opposed by blacks and by the railroads. The Louisiana Supreme Court struck down
the law as it applied to segregated travel crossing state lines, but not intrastate travel. In June
1892, Homer Plessy (who was 1/8 black) bought a first-class ticket from New Orleans to
Covington, Louisiana, and sat in a white-only section. Plessy refused to move and was arrested.
Plessy lost in trial court and at the Louisiana Supreme Court (where the lead judge had been the
governor who signed the segregation statute into law).
Legal Question: Is the law ordering segregation on intrastate railroad travel a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee?
Reasoning:
Dissent (Harlan):
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
Relevant Case Facts: The University of Texas Law School (along with all other law schools in
Texas) did not accept blacks. In 1946, a black Texas postal worker named H.M. Sweatt applied
to the UT law school and was denied admission because of race. Sweatt sued on Equal
Protection grounds. The trial judge gave the state six months to deal with the problem, during
which time the state established a temporary all-black law school, with plans to open a
permanent all-black law school soon thereafter. In light of the creation of the all-black school,
the trial judge dismissed Sweatt’s claim. Sweatt appealed, claiming the new school was inferior.
Texas Supreme Court upheld trial court, saying schools were “substantially equivalent.” Sweatt,
now backed by NAACP, LDF, and the U.S. Government, appealed to Supreme Court.
Legal Question: Does the Texas admission policy violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)
Relevant Case Facts: Kansas law allowed cities with populations over 15,000 to segregate
public schools. Linda Brown was an 8-year old black girl who lived in a white neighborhood
near a whites-only elementary school. Because of the state law, she had to go to an inferior all-
black school that was far away. Her father, a pastor, sued the district on equal protection
grounds. Court consolidated and considered five cases all challenging segregation in public
education. Cases came from Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington DC, and Topeka.
(Brown was the Topeka case.) Cases first argued in December 1952, and reargued in December
1953 (incidentally allowing newly appointed CJ Warren to participate).
Legal Question: Does the Kansas law allowing cities to segregate public schools violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Reasoning:
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
Relevant Case Facts: In the Brown I ruling, the Court indicated that there would be reargument
to determine the “appropriate relief.” Some, such as NAACP argued for immediate end to
segregation. Southern states insisted it had to be gradual.
Legal Question: Who would be responsible for desegregating the schools pursuant to the
decision in Brown I? What was the time frame?
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed. (1971)
Relevant Case Facts: Case involves a challenge to a North Carolina district court’s
desegregation plan, which consolidated Charlotte schools with Mecklenburg schools, creating a
district with 107 schools and 84,000 students. 71 percent of the students in the combined district
were white, 29 percent were black. District court’s order said individual schools had to match
this ratio. But no one was satisfied with the plan: school district did not approve of external
controls, and blacks were not persuaded that the plan would actually desegregate individual
schools within the district (even if it desegregated the district as a whole). Both sides filed suit.
Legal Question: What are the proper guidelines for courts and school boards to follow when
implementing Brown’s desegregation order?
Reasoning: When school authorities fail to meet their obligations to eradicate de jure
segregation, courts must step in. But the remedy must be commensurate with the extent of the
violation; it must not be excessively harsh. Four specific types of remedies are addressed by the
Court.
Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007)
Parents Involved Relevant Case Facts:
The Seattle School District adopted a plan for assigning students to their ten high schools where
incoming ninth graders were allowed to rank their preferences. If one school was over
subscribed, the school district had three tiebreakers. The second tiebreaker was race. If a school
was not within 10% of being 41% white and 59% non-white, students who would help even this
imbalance were given preference. Parents Involved in Community Schools, a nonprofit
organization of parents whose children had been denied their preferred school based on race,
challenged the constitutionality of the assignment policy. The Ninth Circuit upheld school’s plan.
Meredith Relevant Case Facts:
The Jefferson County Board of Education in metropolitan Louisville had been under court
supervision for operating a segregated school system since 1973. The court found the district to
be in compliance with the law in 2000 and removed it from supervision. In 2001 the school
district required all non-magnet schools to maintain a black enrollment of no lower than 15% and
no higher than 50%. Parents were allowed to rank schools based on geographic clusters.
Assignments were made based on available space and racial guidelines. If a school reached
either racial extreme, no student was assigned to that school who would not relieve the school’s
imbalance. Racial balance was also taken into consideration when parents requested a transfer.
Crystal Meredith, whose son had been denied a transfer because he was white, filed a suit
claiming the policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit upheld the policy.
Legal Question: May a public school district that has not operated legally segregated schools
choose to make school assignments on the basis of race?
Reasoning:
Concurring (Thomas):
Concurring in Judgment (Kennedy):
Dissenting (Stevens):
Dissenting (Breyer):
