

Review the first day power point!!
Know the different tests (strict scrutiny, middle
level review, mere rationality review) and different
classes (suspect, quasi/semi-suspect etc, and
which groups included in each)!


Note – Court refers to classes under mere rationality
review as either semi-suspect or quasi-suspect, we have
used both in class which is why it says quasi/semisuspect)
Understand the example given about the carpenter
and how all 3 tests could be used (in the power
point)




Issue: Whether Scott could be a citizen of the
US and therefore receive all protections of
constitution? Whether Missouri compromise
was unconstitutional?
Decision: No; Yes.
Significance: No longer good law, overturned
by passing of 13, 14, 15 Amendments
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was
unconstitutional (CRA made it a federal crime to
deny on basis of race any individual’s equal access
to inns, public transportation, and other public
places of accommodations)
Decision: Yes
Significance: First time SC says 14th Amendment
rights applicable only where state action is present.
No longer good law, overturned in 1964 & 1965 by
Civil Rights Act which included eating
establishments and other public places of
accomodations
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether LA law violated the 14th
Amendment?
Decision: No
Significance: This case formulated and upheld
the “separate but equal” doctrine
Precedents: Roberts v. City of Boston-ruled
segregated schools were constitutional




Issue: Whether the restrictive covenant,
restricting the sale of homes to minorities,
violated the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment?
Decision: Yes
Significance: Still good law, you can have
restrictive covenants, but they won’t be
enforced by the Courts
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether segregation of races in public
schools violates the equal protection clause of
the 14th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, unanimous!
Significance:
Precedent: Sweatt v. Painter –ruled that
segregated law schools were not equal because
did not provide equal educational
opportunities




Issue: Whether the segregation of public
schools based on race was a violation of the
due process clause of the 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes
Significance: Still good law, applied Brown v.
BOE to the federal governments
Precedent: Brown v. BOE




Issue: How should Brown I be implemented?
By when do schools need to be integrated?
Decision: Schools must integrate “with all
deliberate speed”
Significance: Decision was apology for not
setting precise guidelines as well as a
recognition for the limitation of judicial power
Precedent: Brown v. BOE




Issue: Whether the multidistrict desegregation
plan was an appropriate remedy to the de facto
segregation in the Detroit area?
Decision: No, it was not
Significance: Still good law, court defines
difference btwn de facto and de jure segregation.
Not the job of the courts to fight de facto
segregation, only de jure segregation.
Precedent: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg—
federal courts may not order a school board to
adjust the racial composition of any of its schools
unless there has been a finding that there was de
jure segregation




Issue: Whether University of California’s quota
system used for admissions violated the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
Decision: Yes
Significance: even though quota system
unconstitutional, it upheld affirmative action,
also noted that affirmative action plans subject
to strict scrutiny
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether law school’s consideration of
race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions
was a violation of the EP clause?
Decision: No, was constitutional
Significance: Law school’s best interest to
create diverse student body, upheld Bakke,
recognized benefits of affirmative action
Precedent: Bakke




Issue: Whether UM use of racial preferences in
undergraduate admissions violates equal
protection clause of 14th Amendment? (used
point system, people assigned automatic 20
points)
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: upheld Bakke but no factor can be
solely based on race
Precedent: Bakke, Grutter





Remember 4 things we wrote down that help us in
analyzing cases and state of law after Grutter & Gratz
Race conscious admissions measures will receive strict
scrutiny, and thus must be narrowly tailored to serve
compelling objective
Pursuit of diversity in student body can be compelling
objective
A one at a time student evaluation where race is
merely one factor among various ones is sufficiently
narrow
Mechanical approaches resembling quotas such as
automatically awarding an applicant a fixed number of
points towards admissions based on race are not
narrowly tailored and therefore violate EP




Issue: Whether the Seattle school district’s
policy of using race as a “tie breaker” to help
determine which high school students should
go to violates EP clause of the 14th Amendment.
Decision: Yes, policy unconstitutional
Significance: Affirmative action cannot be
applied in school system with race as a
determinative factor
Precedent: Bakke, Gratz, Grutter





Brief Facts: Woman in air force, husband had to prove he
was dependent on her before he could get benefits, men in
air force, their wives were presumed to be dependent
Issue: Whether the difference in benefit treatments btwn
men and women (for their spouses) violates due process
clause of 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: While gender given strict scrutiny in this case,
court later settled on middle level review
Precedent: Reed v. Reed – overturned a law that gave
fathers of deceased mandatory preference over mothers in
administering deceased estate bc gave preferences to males
without regard to their individual qualifications




Issue: Whether gender-based difference
regarding sale of non-intoxicating beer
constitutes a denial to males 18-20 years old of
the EP of laws of 14th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: Court permanently settled on
intermediate level of scrutiny for gender-based
classifications, regardless of whether they are
benign.
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether the statute denying welfare
benefits to residents who have not resided in
the state for at least one year violates 14th
amendment equal protection clause?
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: strict scrutiny applies to
fundamental rights, right to travel is
fundamental right
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether the mentally retarded should be
regarded as a quasi/semi-suspect class?
Whether the city ordinance violated the EP
clause of the 14th Amendment?
Decision: No, mentally retarded not quasisuspect class; yes, city ordinance violated EP
Significance: SC felt best way to protect the
mentally retarded was to not classify them as
quasi-suspect
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether Mississippi statute which
excluded males from enrolling in statesupported professional nursing school violated
the EP clause of 14th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: Still good law, very narrow
ruling, Court’s reasoning based on nursing
profession and fact that majority in profession
were women and that had been true
historically
Precedent: NA




Issue: Whether law prohibiting sodomy was
unconstitutional under due process clause of
14th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, unconstitutional
Significance: recognized equal rights of
homosexuals and court recognized that there
has been history of discrimination, trying to
reverse some of that
Precedent: Romer v. Evans




Issue: Whether DOMA violates due process
clause of 5th Amendment?
Decision: Yes, DOMA unconstitutional
Significance: declared DOMA unconstitutional,
Federal govt must recognize same sex
marriages if state permits it
Precedent: Lawrence v. Texas




Issue: Whether Prop 8 violates EP clause of 14th
Amendment?
Decision: Court didn’t answer this, Court
found petitioners lacked standing to bring the
case
Significance: Allowed lower court’s ruling
finding Prop 8 unconstitutional to stand, leaves
big question of whether law prohibiting same
sex marriage is unconstitional
Precedent: NA