|
|
Significant Supreme Court Cases
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537
(1896)
Case Name: Plessy
v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Defendants: John H. Ferguson, judge of the criminal District Court for the parish of Orleans Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Year : Argued: April 13, 1896 Decided: May 18, 1896 Significant Points: Homer Plessy a biracial man challenged a Louisiana law requiring railroad companies in the state to provide "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored race." The court decided 'separate but equal' facilities were constitutional. This ruling was extended to include schools. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenting opinion and he wrote "Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens." Case Name: Cumming v. Board of Education of Richmond County, 175 U.S. 528 (1899) Plaintiffs: Cumming, Harper and Ladeveze Defendants: The Board of Education of Richmond County and Charles S. Bohler, tax collector. Location: Richmond County Georgia Year: Argued: October 30, 1899 Decided: December 18, 1899 Significant Points: The Court issued a unanimous opinion that upheld
a decision of white officials to close the black high school. The black
defendants demanded that the Court grant an injunction that would prevent
the use of taxes for the operation of the white high schools until the
county reestablished the black high school. This decision gave a green
light to school officials to discriminate.
Plaintiffs: Gong Lum and Martha Lum Defendants: Superintendent of Education of the State of Mississippi Location: Mississippi Year: Argued: October 12, 1927 Decided: November 21, 1927 Significant Points: Gong Lum, a Chinese merchant in Mississippi sent his daughter Martha to a white school, and she was sent home because she was not white. The Court ruled for the state citing Cumming Chief Justice William Howard Taft said the question of who can attend state schools 'has been may times decided to be within the constitutional power of the state legislature to settle without intervention of the federal courts under the Federal Constitution. Case Name: State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938) Plaintiffs: Lloyd Gaines Defendants: CANADA, REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Location: Missouri Year: Argued: November 9, 1938 Decided: December 12, 1938 Significant Points: The Supreme Court ruled that Missouri could not satisfy its obligation to provide equal protection by sending an African American resident to an out-of-state law school and that Lloyd Gaines must thus be admitted to the all-white University of Missouri School of Law. This case was the beginning of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's effort to chip away at the separate-but-equal doctrine. The State of Missouri set up a separate inferior law school in 1939, forcing the NAACP back to court. However early in 1939 Gaines disappeared never to surface again, some suspected foul play others thought he accepted a bribe. Whatever happened the NAACP was forced to drop the case because it not longer had a plaintiff. Case Name: Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) Plaintiffs: Herman Sweatt Defendants: Theophilus S. Painter, President of The University of Texas Location: Houston, Texas Year: Argued: April 4, 1950 Decided: June 5, 1950 Significant Points: In 1946, with the support of the NAACP, Herman Marion Sweatt applied for admission to The University of Texas School of Law. The University registrar rejected his application because Sweatt was an African American and UT was a segregated institution. Sweatt, with NAACP counsel, sued. Although Sweatt lost in state court, the United States Supreme Court in 1950 ordered the integration of The University of Texas School of Law and also The University's Graduate School. Case Name: McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) Plaintiffs: George McLaurin Defendants: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education Location: Oklahoma Year: Argued: April 3-4, 1950 Decided: June 5, 1950 Significant Points: On January 28, 1948, a black retired professor,
George McLaurin, applied to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate
in Education. School authorities were required to deny him admission
solely because of his race under Oklahoma statutes which made it a misdemeanor
to maintain or operate, teach, or attend a school at which both whites
and African Americans were enrolled or taught. McLaurin filed a complaint
to gain admission. On October 6, the Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma found unconstitutional those parts of the Oklahoma statute
that denied McLaurin admission. With this ruling the University's Board
of Regents voted to admit McLaurin, but on a segregated basis. Case Name: Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950) Plaintiffs: Elmer Henderson Defendants: Southern Railway and Interstate Commerce Commission Location: Maryland Year: Argued: April 3, 1950 Decided: June 5, 1950
Defendants: Roderick Elliott (Briggs), Board of Education of Topeka Kansas (Brown), County School Board of Prince Edward County Virginia (Davis), Location: Clarendon County, South Carolina (Briggs), Topeka, Kansas (Brown), Prince Edward County Virginia (Davis), Wilmington, Delaware (Gebhart) Year: Argued: December 9, 1952 Decided: May 17, 1954 Significant Points: Ended de jure school segregation Case Name: Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Plaintiffs: Spotswood Bolling, Jr. Defendants: Sharpe Location: Washington D.C. Year: Argued: December 10-11. 1952 Decided: May 17, 1954 Significant Points: This is a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, supra, p 873. In the latter case the Supreme Court held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. In the present case, in an opinion by Warren, Ch. J., it was held that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia. Case Name: Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, "Brown II," 349 U.S.
294 (1955) Plaintiffs: Oliver Brown Defendants: Board of Education of Topeka Kansas Location: Topeka, Kansas Year: Argued: April 11-15, 1955 Decided: May 31, 1955 Significant Points: The principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional was announced by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (and three companion cases) 347 US 483, 98 L ed 873, 74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR2d 1180 (dealing with state public schools) and in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497, 98 L ed 884, 74 S Ct 693 (dealing with public schools of the District of Columbia). In all these cases the Supreme Court requested further argument on the question of relief. In a supplemental opinion by Warren, Ch. J., the Supreme Court unanimously reversed those courts below which had permitted racial segregation in public schools, and remanded the cases with directions that these courts, in fashioning and effectuating the decrees, should be guided by equitable principles as defined in the opinion. The most important principle is that the defendants should make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with the decision requiring desegregation and that the burden rests upon them to establish that additional time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good-faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. The trial courts are directed to retain jurisdiction of the cases during the period of transition. Case Name: Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) Plaintiff: William G. Cooper, President Little Rock School Broad Defendants: John Aaron Location: Little Rock, Arkansas Year: Argued: September 11, 1958 Decided: September 12, 1958 Significant Points: The School Board and the Superintendent of Schools of Little Rock, Arkansas, filed the present petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking a postponement of a plan for desegregation of public schools which had been adopted by the Board and approved by the appropriate federal courts. The court refused to postpone further desegregation in the face of the official and public hostility that had accompanied the integration the city's Central High School. Case Name: Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Board of Education, 377 U.S. 218 Plaintiff: Griffin Defendants: County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia Location: Prince Edward County, Virginia Year: Argued: March 30, 1964 Decided: May 25, 1964 Case Name: Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, Va. 391 U.S. 430 Plaintiff: Green Defendants: County School Board of New Kent County, Virginia Location: New Kent County, Virginia Year: Argued: April 3, 1968 Decided: May 27, 1968 Significant Points: The case involved a freedom of choice plan established in 1965 in New Kent County just east of Richmond. The plan resulted in little desegregation. The Court ruled that such plans must be approved only if effective in achieving desegregation. Case Name: Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 Plaintiff: Alexander Defendants: Holmes County Board of Education Location: Holmes County, Mississippi Year: Argued: October 23, 1969 Decided: October 29, 1969 Significant Points: President Nixon ordered a delay in court orders that would have forced 33 school districts in Mississippi to produce plans for segregation. The Legal Defense Fund appealed to the Court. The Court ruled the standard of "all deliberate speed" was no longer constitutionally permissible. The Court added, "The obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools…These schools were in which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color." Case Name: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 Plaintiff: Darius Swann Defendant: Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education Location: Charlotte, North Carolina Year: Argued: October 12, 1970 Decided: April 20, 1971 Significant Points: The Court ruled that a range of tools, including school busing were appropriate to promote racial balance. However Swann did not affect the North. Case Name: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 Plaintiff: Demetrio Rodriguez Defendant: San Antonio Independent School District Location: San Antonio, Texas Year: Argued: October 12, 1972 Decided: March 21, 1973 Significant Points: Demetrio Rodriguez complaint was pointed at the in egalitarian aspect of school funding: public schools supported by local property taxes. School spending differed by as much twice the amount in Alamo Heights as in Edgewood. The Court found no proof the San Antonio's financing system disadvantaged any identifiable group or that the poorest students lived only in the districts with the most badly financed schools. Justice Lewis Powell wrote "The Equal Protection Clause, does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages." He added education was not a fundamental interest under the Constitution and that levels of financing were only a part of what made good schools. Case Name: Keys v. Denver School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 921 Plaintiff: Keys Defendant: Denver School District Location: Denver, Colorado Year: 1973 Significant Points: Denver was the first nonsouthern city to have its school policies challenged in the High Court. The Court all but ordered Denver to start citywide busing. However, the Court did say de facto segregation was insufficient grounds for judicial intervention, if a school board could show that it did not intend to segregate. If segregation stemmed from other sources such as housing arising from uncoordinated private decisions. Case Name: Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 Plaintiff: Verda Bradley Defendant: William Milliken, Governor of Michigan Location: Detroit, Michigan Year: Argued: February 27, 1974 Decided: July 25, 1974
Case Name: Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424 Plaintiff: Spangler Defendant: Pasadena City Board of Education Location: Pasadena, California Year: Argued April 27-28, 1976 Decided: June 28, 1976 Significant Points: The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied motions, made in 1974, to amend its 1970 order for desegregation of the Pasadena Unified School District by eliminating the requirement that there be no school "with a majority of any minority students". The United States Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion by Rehnquist, J., expressing the views of six members of the court, it was held that having established a racially neutral system of student assignment in the school district by its 1970 order, the District Court could not require the school district to rearrange its attendance zones annually so as to insure perpetually a desirable racial mix in the schools. Case Name: Regents of The University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 Plaintiff: Allen Bakke Defendant: Regents of The University of California Location: Davis, California Year: Argued: October 12, 1977 Decided: June 28, 1978,
Case Name: Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 Plaintiff: Board of Education of Oklahoma City Defendant: Robert L. Dowell Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Significant Points: In 1972 Oklahoma City responded to a federal court order by establishing a race-based busing plan. Whites left the city causing more busing. In 1985 the school board introduced a student reassignment plan that did away with busing elementary school children. The NAACP opposed the plan and when to court. The federal district court backed the city. The Court said court-ordered busing could be dropped when school districts become resegregated because of private choices, and all 'practicable" were taken to eliminate segregation.
Case Name: Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 Plaintiff: Robert R. Freeman, Superintendent of DeKalb County Schools Defendant: Willie Eugene Pitts Location: De Kalb County, Georgia Year: Argued: October 7, 1991 Decided: March 31, 1992 Significant Points: In the county, a suburb of Atlanta, resegregation was happening. Fifty percent of the black students in the county were attending schools that were 90 percent black. Justice Kennedy wrote "Where resegregation is a product not of state action but of private choices, it does not have constitutional implications…It is beyond the authority and beyond the practical ability of the federal courts to try to counteract these kinds of continuous and massive demographic shifts." Case Name: United States v. Fordice, Governor of Mississippi, 505 U.S. 717 Plaintiff: United States Justice Department Defendant: Kirk Fordice, Governor of Mississippi Location: Jackson, Mississippi Year: Argued : November 13, 1991 Decided: June 26, 1992 Significant Points: In 1992 the state of Mississippi still maintained a dual higher education system with five predominantly white institutions and three black institutions. The Court declared that the system sustained racially discriminatory features, and forced the state to take "affirmative steps" to dismantle the system of discrimination in its system of higher education. Case Name: Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 Plaintiff: State of Missouri Defendant: Jenkins Location: Kansas City, Missouri Year: Argued: January 11, 1995 Decided: June 12, 1995 Significant Points: The Court defines the point at which a school district can be released from a court ordered desegr Argued January 11, 1995-Decided June 12, 1995 desegregation order. The Court's decision did not dismantle the desegregation plan, stated that state was not forced to pay for the plan. Also Justice Thomas complained about the psychological theories that claimed "any school that black is inferior, and that blacks cannot succeed without the company of whites." Case Name: Barbara Grutter, v. Lee Bollinger, Plaintiff: Barbara Grutter Defendant: Lee Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan Year: Argued: April 1, 2003 Decided: June 23, 2003 Significant Points: The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI. Case Name: Jennifer Gratz v. Lee Bollinger, Plaintiff: Jennifer Gratz Defendant: Lee Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan Location: Ann Arbor< Michigan Year: Argued: April 1, 2003 Decided: June 23, 2003 Significant Points: In an opinion by Rehnquist, Ch. J., joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., the court, applying strict scrutiny, held that the admission policy's automatic distribution of 20 points to every member of an underrepresented minority violated: (1) The equal protection clause, because the automatic-20-point program was not narrowly tailored to achieve the assertedly compelling interest in educational diversity that the university claimed justified the program, for: (a) The admissions policy did not provide individualized consideration of each characteristic of a particular applicant. (b) The college's program--to which most applications were not subjected--under which the file of an applicant who possessed a characteristic deemed important to the composition of the freshman class could be flagged for a review committee's individual consideration without regard to the points system, only emphasized the flaws of the admissions policy as a whole. (c) The fact that implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might have presented administrative challenges did not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system. (2) Sections 1981 and 2000d, which the Supreme Court had indicated,
in earlier cases, were violated by discrimination that violated the
equal protection clause. |
|
|
|
||
