KEY ** KEY ** KEY **
Landmark Supreme Court Cases: CIVIL RIGHTS
Right or
Principle
Defined
Landmark
Cases
Relevant
Amendment(s),
Article, and/or
Clause
1
Discrimination
against African
Americans,
slavery
Discrimination
against African
Americans,
segregation
3
Discrimination
against African
Americans,
segregation
Plessy v.
Ferguson
(1896)
Brown v. Board
of Education
of Topeka
(1954)
4
Discrimination
against African
Americans,
segregation,
federalism
Heart of
Atlanta Motel
v. United
States (1964)
5
affirmative
action
Does a slave who
escaped to a free
state enjoy the
rights of a citizen?
Does Congress
have authority to
ban slavery in the
western territories?
Dred Scott v.
Sanford (1857)
2
Regents of the
University of
California v.
Bakke (1978)
Question/Issue
Addressed
14th – Equal
Protection
Clause
Majority Opinion, including Key
Concepts
1.
2.
3.
4.
Enslaved Africans and their
descendants were not protected by
the Constitution and could never be
citizens of the United States.
Congress had no authority to prohibit
slavery in federal territories.
Because slaves were not citizens, they
had no standing to sue in court.
Slaves—as chattel or private property—
could not be taken away from their
owners without due process.
Significance
The Court gave legal support
to slavery and prohibited
efforts by Congress and
slaves to challenge the
system through legislation or
the courts. The decision
made civil war as a means to
resolve the conflict over
slavery much more likely.
Is a L.A. law
requiring
segregation in
public facilities
(railroads)
constitutional?
Is the segregation
of public schools
inherently unequal,
thereby violating
the equal
protection clause?
“Separate but equal” public
facilities are constitutional.
Provided legal protection
for de jure segregation in
the South.
School segregation is inherently
unconstitutional because it violated
equal protection clause.
Overturned precedent of
Plessy v. Ferguson, putting
court on side of
desegregation.
Article I –
Commerce
clause, 5th
Is Congress’ ban on
racial discrimination in
public places in the
Civil Rights Act of
1964 constitutional?
Upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress
has authority under the Interstate
Commerce clause to ban racial
discrimination in public places. 5th
Amendment does not forbid reasonable
regulation of interstate commerce and such
incidental damage did not constitute the
"taking" of property without just
compensation or due process of law.
Allowed Congress/federal
government to use its
Commerce Clause power
to fight discrimination.
Strengthened federal
power over states.
14th – Equal
Protection
Clause
Do affirmative
action programs
discriminate against
whites, thereby
violating equal
protection?
Affirmative action programs are
constitutional, but schools may not
use numerical quota systems to
admit less qualified individuals
solely on the basis of their race.
Race may be considered as one
factor in college admissions.
Affirmed constitutionality
of affirmative action
programs, but restricted
the methods they could
use.
14th – Equal
Protection
Clause
KEY ** KEY ** KEY **
Right or
Principle
Defined
Landmark
Cases
6
discrimination
against Asian
Americans, civil
liberties and
war
Roe v. Wade
(1973)
8
civil rights of
women,
federalism
Question/Issue
Addressed
Majority Opinion, including Key
Concepts
5th – Due
process
Does the internment
of more than 100,000
Americans of
Japanese descent in
encampments during
World War II violate
the due process rights
of Japanese
Americans?
The court deferred to
Congress and military
authorities in wartime (judicial
restraint), sacrificing civil
liberties and permitting
legalized racism in a “rush to
accommodate overbroad
claims of military necessity."
1st, 3rd, 4th, and
9th (implied right
to privacy)
May a state
regulate moral
behavior, including
banning abortions
except to save the
life of a mother?
Upheld as constitutional the
internment of more than 100,000
Americans of Japanese descent in
encampments during WW II. The
need to protect against espionage
outweighed Korematsu's individual
rights, and the rights of Americans
of Japanese descent.
Abortions within first trimester legal
under right to privacy, and states
may not abridge that right.
Article I –
commerce
clause, 14th –
Equal
Protection
Clause
Parts of the Violence
Against Women Act
of 1994, in providing a
civil remedy for
victims of gendermotivated violence,
exceed Congress’
authority to regulate
interstate commerce?
Is reapportionment a
“political question” in
which the federal
courts may not
interfere? Does the
equal protection
clause apply to
voting rights?
Is reapportionment a
“political question” in
which the federal
courts may not
interfere? Does the
equal protection
clause apply to
voting rights?
Parts of the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 were unconstitutional
because they exceeded congressional
power under the Commerce Clause
and the 14th amendment’s equal
protection clause. Gender-motivated
crimes are not an “economic” activity.
Limited Congress’ power
to combat gender-based
forms of oppression under
the interstate commerce
clause.
State house districts must be
apportioned on the basis of “one
person, one vote.” Reapportionment is
not a “political question,” so the federal
courts may intervene.
Shifted power from rural
white areas toward
urban/minority areas in state
legislatures. Expanded use of
judicial activism in voting
rights cases.
State senate districts must be
apportioned on the basis of “one
person, one vote.”
Shifted power from rural
white areas toward
urban/minority areas in state
legislatures.
Korematsu v.
U.S. (1944)
7
civil rights of
women, Right
to privacy
Relevant
Amendment(s),
Article, and/or
Clause
U.S. v. Morrison
(2000)
9
14th – equal
protection
Voting rights
Baker v. Carr
(1962)
10
14th – equal
protection
Voting rights
Reynolds v.
Simms (1964)
Significance
Broadened the scope of
the right to privacy to
include abortions within
first trimester.
KEY ** KEY ** KEY **
Right or
Principle
Defined
Landmark
Cases
Relevant
Amendment(s),
Article, and/or
Clause
11
Voting rights
Wesberry v.
Sanders (1964)
14th – equal
protection
Question/Issue
Addressed
Is reapportionment a
“political question” in
which the federal
courts may not
interfere? Does the
equal protection
clause apply to
voting rights?
Majority Opinion, including Key
Concepts
Congressional districts have to be
approximately equal in population.
Significance