DOCSLIB.ORG

The 14Th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The 14Th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause LandmarkCases.org 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause Lesson Plan / The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause—Answer Key This lesson explores the evolution of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause through analysis of primary source excerpts from: − 14th Amendment − Congressional Debates on the 14th Amendment − The Civil Rights Cases (1883) − Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) − Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) − Loving v. Virginia (1967) − Reed v. Reed (1971) − Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) − Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Lesson contents: 1. Handout 1: Timeline of Events and Cases, 1865–2015 2. Handout 2: Primary Sources Relating to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause 3. Handout 3: Evolution of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Last updated: 06/30/2020 Handout 1 Timeline of Events and Cases, 1865–2015 1865 & After the Civil War, former confederate states passed laws that accepted African Americans as free citizens but denied them many rights, including the right to 1866 vote, serve on juries, own and lease land, and own weapons. These laws became known as the Black Codes. The purpose of the laws was to preserve as many remnants of slavery as possible. July In response to the Black Codes, Congress passed the 14th Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification. The Amendment was ratified in July 1868 (former 1868 Confederate states were required to ratify the amendment as a condition of readmission to the United States). 1873 The Slaughter-House Cases were the first major cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment. The Court decided, in these cases, that the federal government could not protect all civil rights—only those rights traditionally associated with national citizenship, like free access to seaports. Fundamental civil rights, however, were the responsibility of the states, and each state could choose whether or not to protect those rights. 1875 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which forbade racial discrimination in public places and facilities such as hotels, public transportation, public parks, and juries. 1880 In Strauder v. West Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that forbade African Americans from serving on juries. The Court decided it would violate the Equal Protection Clause to deny Black people the right to a jury that included Black peers while allowing White people to have juries full of White peers. 1883 The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in a consolidation of five cases now referred to as the Civil Rights Cases. In their decision, the Court said that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because the federal government did not have authority under the 14th Amendment to prohibit discrimination by private individuals or businesses. 1886 In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of San Francisco’s discriminatory treatment of Chinese business owners violated the Equal Protection Clause. Even though the law regulating business licenses did not mention race, the city applied it unequally and gave building permit waivers to White business owners but not to Chinese business owners. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 3 1896 In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court said that Louisiana’s law requiring segregated rail cars for Black people and White people did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, so long as the facilities are equal. The decision created what became known as the “separate but equal” doctrine. 1938 In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Missouri Law School violated the Equal Protection Clause when it denied an African American applicant solely on the grounds of race and there were no other law schools in Missouri accepting African American applicants. 1948 In Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that private neighborhood agreements that forbade homeowners from selling or renting property to non- White buyers could not be enforced. The Court believed that one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause was the equal right for all to buy, own, and sell property. 1950 In Sweatt v. Painter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas’s separate law school for Black students violated the Equal Protection Clause because it had much fewer resources than the university’s law school for White students. 1954 In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson entirely by saying that separate public schools for White and Black students were “inherently unequal” and could, therefore, never be constitutional. The Court found that regardless of whether segregated schools had the same resources, separating students of color based on race seriously harmed their “hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” 1955 After Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, many states that wanted to preserve segregation refused to integrate their public schools. This resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court taking the case of Brown v. Board of Education II one year later, when they declared that school desegregation shall be implemented “with all deliberate speed.” However, the Court did not order that desegregation start immediately or on a specific timeline. The Court also left many decisions for how to desegregate to local school authorities. States with massive resistance to integration were, therefore, able to postpone it for years. 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, and sex in both private employment and in public accommodations. Public accommodations included privately owned hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants. In H eart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, a hotel that refused to rent rooms to African American guests challenged the constitutionality of the law. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate activity related to interstate commerce (trade). © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 2 of 3 1967 In Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 1971 In a unanimous decision in Reed v. Reed, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause and ruled that state laws cannot give a preference to one sex over the other when choosing the person to manage the belongings of a deceased person. 1978 In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a White student who was not accepted to the University of California Davis School of Medicine argued that the school’s affirmative action program, which reserved 16 out of 100 total seats for students who indicated they were members of a “minority group,” violated the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, saying that it was unconstitutional for public schools to have a race quota. However, the Court also said that schools could still consider race as one of many factors in admissions. This was because having a diverse student body improves the quality of education and, therefore, represented an important government interest. 2015 In Obergefell v. Hodges the U.S. Supreme Court found that state same-sex marriage bans violated the Equal Protection Clause because they denied gays and lesbians the right to marry—a right that straight people had. The Court determined that marriage was a fundamental right that all people have regardless of their sexual orientation. In practice this decision made same-sex marriage legal in all states. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Handout 2 Primary Sources Relating to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause Questions to consider as you analyze the primary sources below: − What was the purpose of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when it was written and ratified? − How has the Equal Protection Clause been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in key cases? − How did that interpretation change over time? − What does the Equal Protection Clause mean today? − What role did the case you are studying play in the evolution of the meaning? Document Excerpts:* − Amendment XIV, Sections 1 and 5, ratified 1868 − Congressional Debates on the 14th Amendment − The Civil Rights Cases (1883) − Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) − Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) − Loving v. Virginia (1967) − Reed v. Reed (1971) − Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) − Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) * Note that in some cases the excerpted text from Supreme Court opinions uses dated race-related terms or conventions. These terms have been left intact in quoted material only. © 2020 Street Law, Inc. Page 1 of 13 14th Amendment, Sections 1 and 5, ratified 1868 Section 1. 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. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Questions to Consider 1. Underline and define any key words from Sections 1 and 5. Student answers will vary, but they might underline: • Jurisdiction – the legal power/authority over a person or topic • Abridge – limit • Privileges – legal rights or advantages • Immunities – legal protections • Due process – the proper legal steps required for a government’s taking of life, liberty, or property to be fair and just (for example, notice that the government might take away your property is usually required because you are have a right to defend yourself from the government’s decision in court) 2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: a Constitutional Siesta
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1996 The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: A Constitutional Siesta Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "The Takings Jurisprudence of the Warren Court: A Constitutional Siesta," 31 Tulsa Law Journal 643 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TULSA LAW JOURNAL Volume 31 Summer 1996 Number 4 THE TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE OF THE WARREN COURT: A CONSTITUTIONAL SIESTA* Richard A. Epsteint I. EBB TIDE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS ...................... 644 II. A CRITIQUE OF THE WARREN COURT DECISIONS ...... 650 A. The Prima Facie Case: A Taking of Private Property ............................................ 651 1. Water ........................................... 651 2. Overflight Easements ........................... 656 3. Lien Rights ..................................... 658 B. General Regulations................................. 660 1. Prohibition on Use ............................. 660 2. Contract Regulation ............................ 662 3. Rate of Return Regulation ..................... 664 4. Civil Rights Cases .............................. 666 III. POLICE POWER JUSTIFICATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • <I>United States V. Morrison</I>
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2015 Bait and Switch: Why United States v. Morrison is Wrong about Section Five Kermit Roosevelt III University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Repository Citation Roosevelt, Kermit III, "Bait and Switch: Why United States v. Morrison is Wrong about Section Five" (2015). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 748. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/748 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\100-3\CRN302.txt unknown Seq: 1 18-MAR-15 8:28 BAIT AND SWITCH: WHY UNITED STATES V. MORRISON IS WRONG ABOUT SECTION 5 Kermit Roosevelt III† In United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court announced the rule that the Section 5 power cannot be used to regulate private individuals. This is one of the most meaningful and, thus far, durable constraints that the Court has placed on federal power. It is the more surprising, then, that it turns out to be based on essentially nothing at all. The Morrison Court asserted that its rule was derived by—indeed, “controlled by”—precedent, but a closer reading of the Reconstruction-era decisions it cites shows that this is simply not the case.
    [Show full text]
  • David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law
    REVISITING YICK WO V. HOPKINS David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 08-55 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=12629230 BERNSTEIN.DOC 8/25/2008 10:06:52 AM REVISITING YICK WO V. HOPKINS David E. Bernstein* Professor Jack Chin explains in his provocative article1 that Yick Wo v. Hopkins2—an ancient case with a narrow holding—has been cited as supporting modern constitutional doctrines that the Yick Wo Court did not even consider, much less adopt. Yick Wo was not a radical civil rights case decades ahead of its time. Rather, as Professor Chin con- cludes, “Yick Wo is entirely consistent with the other jurisprudence of the era: tolerant of racial classifications, sometimes protective of particu- lar fundamental rights, willing to police state interference with matters it regards as exclusively federal.”3 I disagree with Professor Chin, however, about some important in- terpretive details. In particular: • Professor Chin claims that Yick Wo was fundamentally a “treaty case,” and did not extend constitutional rights to Chinese alien residents of the United States. In fact, Yick Wo explicitly stated that the Chinese, as lawful residents of the United States, were entitled to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the 1866 Civil Rights Act),4 independent of the United States’s treaty with China. Moreover, the Court ultimately held that the laundry ordinances as enforced were unconstitutional, not that they violated treaty provisions; • Yick Wo was not, as Professor Chin alleges, an early example of Lochnerian “substantive due process” jurisprudence, but was, at best, a distant cousin to the Lochner line of cases; • Professor Chin is correct that Yick Wo was not fundamentally a “race case,” but he neglects the fact that the decision did have a * Professor, George Mason University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Decisions
    The Worst Supreme 10Court Decisions By M. Kelly Tillery n April 9, 2010, just 11 days before his 90th birthday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gave notice of his O retirement which will allow President Obama to appoint a second Supreme Court Justice less than two years into his first term. The nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, will certainly endure lengthy, probing and sometimes inane examination in Senate confirmation hearings. Since nominees are often asked about past Supreme Court decisions and, if confirmed, will be asked to wrestle with monumental legal issues, perhaps an examination of how previous Supreme Court justices sometimes got it so wrong and did so much damage might be valuable for all. Only111humanbeingshaveservedonthenation’shighest U.S.113(1973)[legalizationofabortion]orKelo v. City of courtsinceitscreationonSept.24,1789bythefirstJudiciary New London545U.S.469(2005)[eminentdomaintakingfor Act.One-hundrednine(98percent)ofthoseunelectedjurists privatedeveloper].Afterselectionbaseduponthesecriteria have been white, only twoAfrican-American.All men (97 of my own design, I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, percent),exceptthreewomen. AllChristian(93.6percent), an interesting and disturbing common theme. Each one, as exceptsevenJews. shallbeseen,involvedtheshameful,disdainfultreatmentby From its first case, the uneventful and purely procedural thepowerfulofminoritiesandtheirrights.Andineach,the West v. Barnes,2U.S.401(1791),toitsmostrecentproviding courtsidedwiththepowerful,consigningtheminorityoften FirstAmendmentprotectionfor“crushvideos”(ifyouhave
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    No. 14-5297 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit VALERIA TANCO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WILLIAM EDWARD “BILL” HASLAM, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, No. 3:13-cv-01159 (Hon. Aleta A. Trauger) BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF CATO INSTITUTE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE Elizabeth B. Wydra* Ilya Shapiro Douglas T. Kendall CATO INSTITUTE Judith E. Schaeffer 1000 Massachusetts Ave., NW David H. Gans Washington, DC 20001 CONSTITUTIONAL (202) 842-0200 ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 1200 18th St., NW, Ste. 501 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-6889 [email protected] *Counsel of Record Counsel for Amici Curiae CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amici state that neither organization is a publicly-held corporation, nor do they issue stock or have parent corporations. Amici are non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Corporate Disclosure Statement .................................................................. i Table of Contents ......................................................................................... ii Table of Authorities .................................................................................... iii Interest of the Amici Curiae ....................................................................... 1 Summary of Argument ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and Same-Sex Marriage
    ARTICLES Originalism and Same-Sex Marriage STEVEN G. CALABRESI* & HANNAH M. BEGLEY** This article examines the original meaning of the equal- ity guarantee in American constitutional law. It looks are the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century roots of the modern doctrine, and it concludes that the Fourteenth Amendment bans the Hindu Caste system, European feudal- ism, the Black Codes, the Jim Crow laws, and the common law's denial to women of equal civil rights to those held by men. It then considers the constitutionality of bans on same sex marriage from an Originalist perspective, and it con- cludes that State laws banning same sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................648 I. HISTORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY GUARANTEES ...........654 II. SEXUAL ORIENTATION .............................................................699 INTRODUCTION One of the most important public civil rights issues of the mod- ern era is whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitu- tion, as originally understood and modified by reading it through the lens of the Nineteenth Amendment, protects a right to same-sex * Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Visiting Professor of Fall 2013-2015 Yale University; Visiting Scholar, 2015-2016 Brown University. ** Brown University, Class of 2015. 648 2016] ORIGINALISM AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 649 marriage. We believe it does, and we seek in this article to briefly explain why we reach the conclusion we do. Further, we hope to add additional academic support for Justice Kennedy’s recent majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges,1 which we found to be lacking in originalist justification.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Protection Minus Strict Scrutiny Plus Benign Classification Equals What ? Equality of Opportunity
    Pace Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Winter 1991 Article 1 January 1991 Equal Protection Minus Strict Scrutiny Plus Benign Classification Equals What ? Equality of Opportunity Johnny C. Parker Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Johnny C. Parker, Equal Protection Minus Strict Scrutiny Plus Benign Classification qualsE What ? Equality of Opportunity, 11 Pace L. Rev. 213 (1991) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol11/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE LAW REVIEW Volume 11 Winter 1991 Number 2 Articles Equal Protection minus Strict Scrutiny plus Benign Classification Equals What? Equality of Opportunity Johnny C. Parkert I. Introduction Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence no so- cial issue has caused more concern and controversy than that of race.1 Voluminous studies document the sociological and eco- nomic impact which ethnic and racial prejudices have played in t Associate Professor of Law, University of Tulsa School of Law; B.A., 1982, Univer- sity of Mississippi; J.D., 1984, University of Mississippi School of Law; LL.M., 1987, Columbia University School of Law. 1. Justice Taney in 1856 observed that the statement: "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 them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness .
    [Show full text]
  • Legislation Especially for the Negro?
    Wycoff: LEGISLATION ESPECIALLY FOR THE NEGRO? THE BLACK PRESS RESPONDS TO LEGISLATION ESPECIALLY FOR THE NEGRO? THE BLACK PRESS RESPONDS TO EARLY SUPREME COURT CIVIL RIGHTS DECISIONS David Wycofft I. INTRODUCTION ....................... 2. We object to being put on a level with II. THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH them ............................. 68 AMENDMENTS BECOME BUT HIDEOUS VII. CONCLUSION .......................... 71 M O CKERIES ............................ III. EARNESTLY DISCUSSING THE I. INTRODUCTION DECISIO NS ............................. The years 1873-1883 form perhaps the most im- IV. FEDERALISM ........................... portant decade in United States constitutional history.' A. PRESERVING THE MAIN FEATURES OF In the course of deciding a steady stream of cases in- THE GENERAL SYSTEM ................ volving the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth B. THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR WOES ....... amendments, 2 the Supreme Court laid the basis for the V. CLASS LEGISLATION ................... next century of the constitutional law of civil rights and VI. CLASS LEGISLATION IN THE BLACK civil liberties. Unfortunately, it was a "dreadful dec- PR E SS .................................. ade." In decision after decision, the Court struck down A. THE BANE OF THE NEGRO Is federal laws designed to protect civil rights and civil lib- LEGISLATION ESPECIALLY FOR THE erties, and devitalized the new amendments. N EGRO .............................. These early civil rights decisions of the United B. The Negro Is A Citizen And Must Be States Supreme Court provoked a significant response Protected ............................ in the African American community. Discussion of the 1. The same rights as are enjoyed by other decisions, especially the Civil Rights Cases (1883), was 4a people ............................ major theme in the African American press of the time. t Law Clerk, Honorable James T.
    [Show full text]
  • 14Th Amendment US Constitution
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1565 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1565 Privileges and Immunities ................................................................................................. 1568 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1572 The Development of Substantive Due Process .......................................................... 1572 ``Persons'' Defined ................................................................................................. 1578 Police Power Defined and Limited ...................................................................... 1579 ``Liberty'' ................................................................................................................ 1581 Liberty of Contract ...................................................................................................... 1581 Regulatory Labor Laws Generally ...................................................................... 1581 Laws Regulating Hours of Labor ........................................................................ 1586 Laws Regulating Labor in Mines .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution in the Supreme Court: 1921-1930
    THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: 1921-1930 DAVID P. CURRIE* The selection of William Howard Taft to succeed Edward D. White as Chief Justice in 1921 was followed by three additional appointments in the next two years: George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, and Edward T. Sanford replaced William R. Day, Mahlon Pitney, and John H. Clarke. The upshot was something of a reign of terror for state and federal legislation.' White himself had been no great supporter of progressive legislation, and neither Day nor Pitney was in later terms a flaming liberal. The last two, however, had frequently voted with Holmes, Brandeis, and Clarke to sustain social legislation against due process attacks. Sutherland, But- ler, and Sanford, like Taft, tended to cast their lot with Van Devanter, McReynolds, and McKenna, who had been frequent dissenters in sub- stantive due process cases before 1921; thus a vocal minority became a solid majority within a two-year period. The replacement of McKenna by Harlan F. Stone in 1925 merely increased the number of regular dis- senters from two to three.2 * Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law, University of Chicago. Thanks to Mary Beth Gose for managing the computer; to Nelson Lund, David Vandermeulen, Steve Rowland, and Richard Cray Donaldson for useful seminar papers; and to Albert Alschuler, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Helm- holz, Richard Posner, Carol Rose, Geoffrey Stone, Cass Sunstein, and William Van Alstyne for helpful criticism. 1. See Brown, Due Process of Law, Police Power, and the Supreme Court, 40 HARv. L. REV. 943, 944 (1927) ("[I]n the six years since 1920 the Supreme Court has declared social and economic legislation unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment in more cases than in the entire fifty-two previous years ...
    [Show full text]
  • Why Equal Protection No Longer Protects: the Evolving Forms of Status-Enforcing State Action Reva Siegel*
    Why Equal Protection No Longer Protects: The Evolving Forms of Status-Enforcing State Action Reva Siegel* In this essay, ProfessorSiegel examines efforts to reform racialand gender status law in the nineteenth century in order to raise questions about the ways antidiscriminationlaw operates today. The essay demonstrates how efforts to dismantle an entrenched system of status regulationcan produce changes in its constitutive rules and rhetoric,transforming the status regime without abolish- ing it. PartI illustratesthis reform dynamic in the nineteenth century, a period when protest movements were demanding the abolition of slavery and reform of marital status law. Legislatures and courts responded by eliminatingsome of the more overtly hierarchicalfeatures of marital status law, yet adopted gender-biased policies governing domestic labor and domestic violence that were justified as promoting family privacy, rather than marital hierarchy. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Civil War, legislaturesand courts grantedthe newly emancipatedslaves "civil" rights, yet denied them "social" rights, ra- tionalizing miscegation laws and segregation as preserving associationallib- erty, ratherthan racialhierarchy. As these examples illustrate, the rules and reasons the legal system employs to enforce status relationshipsevolve as they are contested. PartII of the essay uses this dynamic model of status regulation to analyze the operations of equal protection law today. We know that doc- trines of heightened scrutiny have disestablishedovertly classificatoryforms
    [Show full text]
  • Public Rights, Social Equality, and the Conceptual Roots of the Plessy Challenge Rebecca J
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2008 Public Rights, Social Equality, and the Conceptual Roots of the Plessy Challenge Rebecca J. Scott University of Michigan Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/317 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Law and Race Commons, Legal History Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Scott, Rebecca J. "Public Rights, Social Equality, and the Conceptual Roots of the Plessy Challenge." Mich. L. Rev. 106, no. 5 (2008): 777-804. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PUBLIC RIGHTS, SOCIAL EQUALITY, AND THE CONCEPTUAL ROOTS OF THE PLESSY CHALLENGE Rebecca J. Scott* This Article argues that the test case that gave rise to the 1896 deci- sion in Plessy v. Ferguson is best understood as part of a well- established, cosmopolitan traditionof anticaste activism in Louisiana rather than as a quixotic effort that contradicted nineteenth-century ideas of the boundaries of citizens' rights. By drawing a dividing line between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social rights, on the other, the Supreme Court construed challenges to seg- regation as claims to a "social equality" that was beyond the scope of judicially cognizable rights.
    [Show full text]