Civil Rights

By 21vpatel_94

  • Scott v. Sanford (1857)

    The supreme court ruled that Americas of African descent, were not American citizens and could not be sued in federal court. Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the US territories. The right of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the fifth A. Because slaves were categorized as property.

  • Reconstruction & Reconstruction Amendments (1865-1877)

    RC- 13A which is slavery is illegal — 14A is protects citizenship rights and equal protection of all Americans and 15A protects all voting rights of all ALL American citizens
    The South created state laws and federal court decision help undermine the RAS. They were able to create Jim Crow and Black Code Laws. JCL limited AA rights. Plessy case gave the JCL approval because of “separate but equal” doctrine.

  • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

    decided the segregation legal because both blacks and whites has equal protection under the law - as long as there is a black and white section
    “separate but equal” accommodations AA were permitted under the Constitution
    Born in whites only trade and he was black
    He was arrested and filed sue- legal argument: violate the 14 A. - due process - is there a reason to violate?(equal protection clause) - equal protection of law(s)
    As long as they are being treated equal

  • 19th Amendment (1920)

    men and women equal voting rights
  • Period: to

    Scottsboro Boys (1931-1937)

    Infringing on the constitutional liberates
    Placing limitations in a way that the law is applied in the Courts
    In Powell v. Alabama could not secure counsel for the defense with NO sufficient time to advice or prepare consuel-no effective legal rep
    Norris v. Alabama, Negroes excluded from grand jury when another Negro was being convicted. The exclusion of Negroes was on purpose because of their race and color and that violated the equal protections of t

  • George Stinney case (1944)

    George Stinney was the youngest person ever to be electroucted in 1944, but 70 yrs later his convinction has overtured.

  • Brown v. Board (1954)

    1st Case that lead to decision of BvB: White school vs. No school - Fails Equal Protection Clause + “Separate but equal”
    MO
    2nd Case that lead to decision of BvB: White school vs. Colored School
    But Cleary not equal
    Fails equal protection clause + “separate but equal”
    TX- Texas Case
    3rd Case that lead to final decision of BvB: Brown v. Board
    White Schools vs. Colored Schools
    Courts saw the schools as tangibly -(factors)- equal
    Were “tangible” equal
    KA

  • Civil Rights Act of 1964

    ended segregation in public paces and banned employment discrimination based on race color religion sex or origin

  • Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Certain localities(city gov and state gov) must get pre-approval from feds before changing their voting laws

  • Civil Rights Act of 1968

    prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin and sex.

  • Jim Crow Era

    Made the separate but equal law segregation and AA -this was by LAW
    Sun down town: Idea if you are black then you cannot be seen in the city after dark sun down
    Forced AA to act inferrer(ere) - respect
    Voter intimidation

  • California v. Bakke (1978) & Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

    University sets aside 16 of 100 seats for non-whites
    White student sued (Equal Protection Clause)
    Affirmative Action programs do not automatically violate EPC, but rigid quota systems do
    White student won

  • Meredith v. Jefferson Co Board (2007) (Louisville school integration)

    1) Do Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger allow a school district to use race as the sole factor to assign high school students to public schools? 2) Can a student enrollment plan that requires each school's student population to be between 15% and 50% African-American meet the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest?

  • Meredith v. Jefferson Co Board (2007) (Louisville school integration) part 2

    Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) were integrated by court order until 2000. After its release from the order, JCPS implemented an enrollment plan to maintain substantial racial integration. Students were given a choice of schools, but not all schools could accommodate all applicants. In those cases, student enrollment was decided on the basis of several factors, including place of residence, school capacity, and random chance, as well as r

  • 2Shelby County v. Holder (2013) (elimination of preclearance enforcement) part 3

    "The conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions." Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who has previously expressed skepticism about the continued need for parts of the Voting Rights Act, delivered the majority opinion.

  • Shelby County v. Holder (2013) (elimination of preclearance enforcement)

    In the 5-to-4 ruling, he was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

  • Shelby County v. Holder (2013) (elimination of preclearance enforcement)

    The decision in Shelby County v. Holder revolves around Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which establishes a "coverage formula" to determine which states and local governments fall under Section 5, and therefore need to get approval before changing their voting laws. The justices ruled that Section 4 is unconstitutional, and that the formula used for decades — revised and extended several times by Congress — can no longer be used to establish those "preclearance" requirements: