Civil Liberties Overview
●​ Civil liberties balance individual freedoms and the government’s role in maintaining order.
●​ The government limits certain natural rights to promote social stability (e.g., restricting free speech in cases
of national security threats).
Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties
Civil Rights:
●​ Protect political and social equality.
●​ Ensured by laws outside the Bill of Rights (e.g., 14th Amendment, Civil Rights Act).
●​ Prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or other group identities.
Civil Liberties:
●​
●​
●​
●​
The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights protect individuals from government interference.
Examples: Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.
They are natural rights that cannot be taken away by the government.
Initially, only applied to the federal government, not state governments.
Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?
●​ Edward Snowden worked for the NSA and CIA and leaked classified documents revealing government
mass surveillance programs.
●​ He claimed the government was spying on American citizens without a court order.
●​ The U.S. government charged him under the Espionage Act of 1917, which protects the identities of
intelligence agents.
●​ Impact:
○​ Raised awareness about government privacy violations.
○​ Sparked a debate on national security vs. individual privacy.
8.1 The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
Early State Constitutions and the Lack of Rights
●​ After gaining independence, many states created their constitutions, but they often lacked certain
protections such as:
○​ Freedom of the press
○​ Freedom of religion
○​ Protection for minorities
The Bill of Rights and the Ratification Debate
●​ The original U.S. Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights, which became a major concern for
Antifederalists.
●​ Antifederalists’ concerns:
○​ The Constitution gave too much power to the federal government.
○​ Citizens needed explicit protections from government overreach.
●​ To secure ratification, 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were added in 1791.
8.2 Selective Incorporation
What is Selective Incorporation?
●​ The Bill of Rights initially applied only to the federal government, not states.
●​ The 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause allowed the Supreme Court to apply certain fundamental rights
to state governments.
●​ This process is called Selective Incorporation, meaning only certain rights (not all) are applied to states
case by case.
Key Supreme Court Case: Gitlow v. New York (1925)
●​ Case Background:
○​ Benjamin Gitlow published a Communist newspaper, advocating for the overthrow of the
government.
○​ Arrested under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Act, which banned calls for violent government
overthrow.
●​ Supreme Court Ruling:
○​ The 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and Press were protected under the 14th Amendment’s
Due Process Clause.
○​ However, Gitlow’s speech was not protected because it threatened public security (sedition).
●​ Impact:
○​ The first case to use Selective Incorporation, applying the 1st Amendment to state governments.
The 14th Amendment’s Role
●​ Due Process Clause:
○​ "No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
○​ Allowed SCOTUS to extend Bill of Rights protections to the states.
●​ Equal Protection Clause:
○​ "No state shall deny any person equal protection of the laws."
○​ Used in cases involving civil rights and discrimination.
8.3 The Right of Religious Freedom
1st Amendment Protections for Religion
1.​ Establishment Clause → Prevents the government from establishing or endorsing a religion.
2.​ Free Exercise Clause → Prevents the government from prohibiting religious practices.
Debate: How Much Can the Government Accommodate Religion?
●​ Separationists → Believe in a strict “wall” between church and state.
●​ Accommodationists → Believe the government can support religion as long as it doesn’t establish one
officially.
Key Supreme Court Cases on the Establishment Clause
●​ Board of Education v. Allen (1968) → States can provide resources to private religious schools (e.g.,
textbooks) without violating the Establishment Clause.
●​ Engel v. Vitale (1962) → Banned school-sponsored prayer in public schools.
●​ Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) → Created the Lemon Test for Establishment Clause cases:
1.​ The law must have a secular purpose.
2.​ Law’s primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion.
3.​ The law must not cause excessive government entanglement with religion.
●​ Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2006) → The Government cannot authorize student-led
prayers at school events.
Key Supreme Court Cases on the Free Exercise Clause
●​ Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) → Amish parents could withdraw their children from school after 8th grade due
to religious beliefs.
●​ Employment Division v. Smith (1990) →
○​ Native American workers were fired for using peyote (an illegal drug) in a religious ceremony.
○​ The Court ruled religious beliefs do not excuse breaking valid laws.
●​ Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) →
○​ The IRS revoked tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University for banning interracial dating.
○​ The Court ruled religious practices cannot violate important government policies (like
anti-discrimination laws).
●​ Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) →
○​ For-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause.
Key Takeaways
●​ Civil Liberties are individual freedoms protected from government interference.
●​ The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government but was later applied to the states
through Selective Incorporation.
●​ The 1st Amendment protects religious freedom through the Establishment Clause (no government
endorsement of religion) and Free Exercise Clause (protection of religious practices).
●​ Supreme Court cases have defined limits to religious freedoms, such as banning school prayer and
preventing religious practices that violate federal laws.
8.4 The Right of Expression
Freedom of Expression – First Amendment right to speak, publish, protest, and express opinions/beliefs.
Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition
●​ Courts balance free speech with public safety concerns.
National Security and Political Expression
●​ Free speech is more restricted in wartime for safety.
●​ Espionage Act of 1917 – Crime to interfere with military recruiting (e.g., opposing the draft).
●​ Schenck v. United States (1919)
○​ Schenck distributed anti-draft fliers, violating the Espionage Act.
○​ The court ruled free speech can be limited if it poses a "clear and present danger."
○​ Overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
●​ Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
○​ KKK leaders encouraged violence.
○​ Court ruled speech is protected unless it incites "imminent lawless action."
The Press and National Security
●​ Prior Restraint – Government censorship before publication (rarely allowed).
●​ Near v. Minnesota (1931) – The Court ruled that the government cannot censor the press, except in cases of
obscenity, inciting violence, or military secrets.
●​ New York Times v. United States (1971)
○​ Nixon tried to block the Pentagon Papers under national security claims.
○​ Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, reinforcing press freedom.
●​ Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983) – Schools can censor student newspapers if it affects the school's
educational mission.
Symbolic Speech
●​ Symbolic speech – Actions that express ideas (e.g., signs, symbols, protests).
●​ Texas v. Johnson (1989) – Flag burning is protected political speech.
●​ Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Students' protest armbands are protected unless speech "materially and
substantially interferes" with school operations.
●​ Bethel v. Fraser (1986) – Schools can restrict vulgar/offensive language if it disrupts education.
●​ Morse v. Frederick (2007) – Schools can restrict drug-related speech at school events (e.g., "BONG HITS 4
JESUS").
Restrictions on Free Speech
●​ Protected speech can have time, place, and manner restrictions.
●​ Unprotected speech includes:
○​ Obscenity
○​ Fighting words (hate speech)
○​ Defamation (slander & libel)
○​ Child pornography
○​ Perjury
○​ Blackmail
○​ Incitement to violence
○​ True threats
Defamation
●​ Defamation – False statements that harm a person’s reputation.
○​ Slander = Spoken defamation
○​ Libel = Written defamation
●​ New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
○​ Public figures must prove "actual malice" (intentional falsehood).
●​ Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1983) – Satirical/parody speech is protected.
Hate Speech
●​ Hate speech is protected unless it incites immediate violence.
●​ Cohen v. California (1971) – Political speech with profanity can be protected.
●​ Snyder v. Phelps – Offensive speech without direct harm is protected.
Pornography and Obscenity
●​ Miller v. California (1973) – The Miller Test:
1.​ Would an average person consider it obscene?
2.​ Does it depict offensive sexual conduct?
3.​ Does it lack artistic, political, or social value?
●​ Difficult to regulate pornography due to varying community standards.
Freedom of Assembly
●​ De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) – Freedom of assembly is broadly protected.
The Second Amendment – Right to Bear Arms
●​ District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
○​ Gun bans are unconstitutional; the Second Amendment protects individual rights.
●​ McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
○​ Selective incorporation applied the Second Amendment to the states.
Civil Rights: the rights of citizens to political and social freedoms, with equality. (primarily 13th, 14th,
15th, and 26th)
Civil Liberties: constitutionally establish guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and
property against arbitrary government interference. (BOR)
The BOR is a prohibition against Federal Power that did not apply to states before 1925.
5th Amendment is due process for Federal govt. 14th Amendment is due process for State govt.
Selective Incorporation Doctrine: SCOTUS will find that a portion of the BOR is critical to DP, and
incorporates the protection through the DPC of the 14th Amendment onto the states. (Gitlow v. New York
1925)
1st amendment has 5 protections:
Speech
Press
Religion
-​ Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
rights of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.
-​ Separationists: Supporters of a ‘wall of separation” between church and state.
-​ Accommodationists: supporters of government nonpreferential accommodation of
religion.
Assembly
Petition
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
NYC public schools were to start each day with a specific Christian prayer
Students had the option to leave the classroom
Establishment clause prohibited national religion
Works against federal government
1.​ Mandatory
2.​ Christian Prayer
3.​ Always the same
4.​ “Dependence” causes a dependence on the Christian god
5.​ “Country” puts it as a Christian country
6.​ Forces students to go to school
7.​ The teacher is a B, govt. The representative gives a Christian prayer
Works for the government
1.​ You can leave
The parents win (6-1) ruling
100% violates Establishment Clause
Your kind of peer pressuring the kids into religion
Lemon v Kurtzman
Gives us a test to determine if there is a break in the Establisment clause
In the state of PE and RI they put school vouchers, for private schools.
Vouchers: Government to pay for public school. Or you can use it to pay for private school.
(8-0) for RI
(8-1) for PE
Both violate the establishment clause.
New Precedent: The Lemon Test
1.​ Laws must have a secular legislative purpose
2.​ The primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion
3.​ The law must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion”
If it breaks 1, its a violation. Secular = Non religious
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
1.​ At this school a student was elected as school chaplain and would deliver a Christian prayer over
the PA system before home football games
2.​ After two parents sued the school changed the rule to allowe the students to vote whether they
wanted “invocations” before the football game and who they wanted to deliver them. The
students vote in favor of having the invocations
3.​ Does the school districts decision to allowe student-led student-initiated prayer at football games
violate the establishment clause.
(6-3) Parents won
Public speech
Authorized
Stone v. Graham (1980)
Parents challenge a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in
each public school classroom.
They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky alleging this
violated the establishment clause.
Court ruled that the Kentucky law violated the first part of the lemon test.
Edwards v. Aguillard (1986)
1.​ Louisiana law prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools
2.​ Unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science (Biblical science)
3.​ Schools were forced to teach this if they taught evolution
Fired Aguillard who is a Bio teacher and he sued Gov of Lousiana
Ruled that the law was stupid
Lynch v. Donelly
Free Exercise Clause & First Amendment
Employment Division V. Smith
1.​ Two counselors at a drug rehab center ingested peyote – a hallucinogen – as part of the Native
American religious ceremonies.
2.​ They get fired because it is a drug rehab center.
The question: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs in a
religious ceremony.
(6-3) Yes you can deny them.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (required)
​
Amish parents pulled their children out of school after 8th grade, saying that the High School curriculum
was contrary to their religious beleifs. This violated the state law that students must attend school attend
age 16.
Yoder wins because Amish live in a separate society and don't need education.
​
2/26: The Sixth Amendment – Trials, Juries, and Attorneys (pp. 281-286)
●​ Sixth Amendment Protections: Guarantees a fair trial, including the right to a speedy and public
trial, an impartial jury, notice of accusations, confrontation of witnesses, compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses, and the right to an attorney.
●​ Impartial Jury: Juries must be representative of the community, and potential jurors can be
removed through challenges (for cause or peremptory challenges).
●​ Right to an Attorney: Established in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), ensuring that those accused of
a crime have legal representation, even if they cannot afford an attorney.
●​ Public Trials: Prevent secret proceedings and promote transparency, but courts can restrict access
under special circumstances (e.g., protecting witnesses).
●​ Speedy Trials: Prevent prolonged detention before trial, but delays may occur based on case
complexity.
2/27: Chapter 9 – Begin to Plessy v. Ferguson (pp. 293-298)
●​ Overview of Civil Rights: Focus on how constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings
shaped racial and civil rights in America.
●​ Post-Civil War Amendments:
○​ 13th Amendment (1865): Abolished slavery.
○​ 14th Amendment (1868): Granted citizenship and equal protection under the law.
○​ 15th Amendment (1870): Gave Black men the right to vote.
●​ Jim Crow Laws: Enforced racial segregation in the South, limiting African Americans' rights
despite constitutional protections.
●​ Plessy v. Ferguson (1896):
○​ A Louisiana law required separate railway cars for Black and white passengers.
○​ Homer Plessy, who was 7/8 white, was arrested for sitting in a "whites-only" car.
○​ The Supreme Court upheld segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine,
legitimizing racial segregation for decades.
2/28: Plessy v. Ferguson to Affirmative Action (pp. 298-302)
●​ Impact of Plessy v. Ferguson:
○​ Established the separate but equal doctrine, justifying segregation in schools,
transportation, and public facilities.
○​ Led to widespread institutionalized racism and unequal services for Black Americans.
●​ Challenges to Segregation:
○​ Early civil rights activists, such as the NAACP, worked to challenge segregation through
legal cases.
○​ Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy, ruling that "separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal."
●​ Affirmative Action:
○​ Policies designed to address past discrimination and increase opportunities for
historically marginalized groups.
○​ Controversial issue in education and employment, with key cases such as Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke (1978), which upheld affirmative action but rejected
racial quotas.
Bob Jones University v. US
Bob Jones University was dedicated to “fundamentalist Christian beliefs” which included prohibitions
against interracial dating and marriage. In 1970, the IRS changed its formal policy to adopt a district court
decision that prohibited the IRS from giving tax-exempt status to private schools engaging in racial
discrimination. The IRS believed that the Universities policies amounted to racism and revoked its
tax-exempt status.​
(8-1) Agreed that Bob Jones policy is stupid
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz (1987)
Ahmad Uthman Shabazz was an inmate at Leesburg State Prison (NJ). The prison classified inmates
depending on the security risk each posed. Due to their classification, Shabazz was assigned to a prison
job outside of the main prison building and was not allowed to return to the main prison building during
the workday. Because of these restrictions neither mean, both of whom were practicing Muslims, were
able to attend Juamu’ah, a weekly prayer on friday.
(5-4) He cant pray
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
The Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores. Inc., a store, The green family runs it Christian
so they wouldnt pay for contraception. Hobby Lobby did not want to pay for that in their health insurance
plan. ACA forces Hobby Lobby to pay for contraception. ​
​
Does the Religious Freedom Restoraction Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees
health coverage of contraception. Based on the religious objections of the owners are they allowed to not
give contraception.​
​
(5-4) They dont have to pay for contraception.
There is no such thing blocking freedom of expression. ​
Categories of Unpriotected Speech:
Obscenities
Fighting words
Defamation including libel and slander
Child ponorgraphy
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Schneck v. United States
Charles Schneck, General Secretary of Socialist Party
Mailed 15,000 fliers to draft-eligible men: urged not to comply on grounds that military conscription
constituded a violation of the 13th amendment anti slavery act.
Ruling showed that words that create clear and present danger and proximity and degree. (time place and
manner)
Unanimous opinion: conviction was constitutional. (wartime allows stricter restrictions on speech
because, its important)​
​
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
KKK rally covered by a Cincinnati TV station
Brandenburg charged with advocating violence under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute for his
participation in the rally
Fined $1000 and sentenced to 10 years.
Government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
Per curiam replaced “clear and present danger” with “imminent lawless action”
Symbloic Speech
Speech that has symbols that are unspoken like middle finger
Texas v. Johnson 1989
In front of Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against
Reagan administration policies.
Convicted of desecration of flag
Was protected under the freedom of speech.
Government cant prohibit speech because people dont like it.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Mines decided to wear black armbands throughout the
holiday season and fast on December 16 and New Year’s Eve to protest the Vietnam War. The principals
of the De Moines schools learned of the plan, and the principal suspended them.
(7-2)
Yes she can wear the band
Tinker Test The substantial disruption test is the major standard developed by the U.S. Supreme Court in
its seminal student speech K-12 decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
(1969) meant to determine when public school officials may discipline students for their expression.
The substantial disruption test is the major standard developed by the
U.S. Supreme Court in its seminal student speech K-12 decision Tinker
v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) meant
to determine when public school officials may discipline students for
their expression.​
​
Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
At an 600 person rally Fraser used vulgar and offensive language to help his friend get class president.
Morse v. Frederick (2007)
The olympic torch relay passed by the school so students watch.
A student who didnt attend school that day help up a sign with “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”
Principal takes the banner and suspends Frederick for ten days.
[3]
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.
It has three parts:
●​ Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards",
would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
●​ Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
[4]
conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
●​ Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
Offernsive Speech/ Hat Speech
Fighting words are not defendant
7 Dirty words
Freedom of the Press
Prior restraint: Stopping speech before it occurs
It is seen as a more dangerous form of censorship since the blocking of press.
Near v. Minnesota
In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and HowardGuilford accused local
officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against
yes.
No prior restraint (9-0)
Maybe if it leaked secrets or incited violence.
NYT Company v. United States
Pentagon papers were leaked showing that Nixon knew that the Vietnam War was a waste, lying to the
people, and they were sneaked out of the pentagon and sent copies of them to the Washington Post and the
New York Times. US threatens to injunct them (idfk what that means). NYT publishes against the
injunction. Injunction is a legal term for stopping sromeone from doing something from a court.
(6-3) Favored new york times.​
​
Rights of Defendants
Ex Post Facto Laws, Bills of Attainder, and Habeas Corpus
●​ Ex Post Facto Laws – Laws that criminalize an act after it has been committed; prohibited by
Article I.
●​ Bills of Attainder – Laws that convict a person without a trial; unconstitutional.
●​ Writ of Habeas Corpus – Right to challenge unlawful detention; government must justify arrest.
Procedural Due Process
●​ Standard of fairness applied to all individuals.
●​ Protects defendants' rights in legal proceedings.
Fourth Amendment: Search, Seizure, and Warrants
●​ Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
●​ Warrants required for searches, issued by a judge with probable cause.
●​ Exceptions: Hot pursuit, public safety, and reasonable suspicion in schools.
Key Supreme Court Cases
●​
●​
●​
●​
●​
●​
●​
Mapp v. Ohio – Illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court (Exclusionary Rule).
U.S. v. Weeks (1914) – Federal government cannot use evidence from an illegal search.
Katz v. United States – Established the reasonable expectation of privacy standard.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. – Schools can conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students.
Michigan v. Sitz (1986) – DUI checkpoints are constitutional as public safety outweighs privacy.
Riley v. California – Police cannot search cell phones without a warrant.
California v. Greenwood – Garbage outside the home can be searched without a warrant.
Fifth Amendment: Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, and Self-Incrimination
●​ Grand Jury – Determines if enough evidence exists for a trial.
●​ Double Jeopardy – Cannot be prosecuted twice for the same crime within the same jurisdiction.
●​ Self-Incrimination – Cannot be forced to testify against oneself.
Miranda Rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966)
●​ Right to remain silent.
●​ Right to an attorney during questioning.
Sixth Amendment: Right to Trial and Legal Representation
●​ Right to an attorney (public defenders for those who cannot afford one).
●​ Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Applied this right to state cases.
Eighth Amendment: Bail and Punishment
●​ Prohibits:
○​ Excessive bail.
○​ Excessive fines.
○​ Cruel and unusual punishment.
●​ Woodson v. North Carolina – Mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional.
●​ Atkins v. Virginia (2002) – Death penalty banned for mentally disabled defendants.
●​ Roper v. Simmons (2005) – Death penalty banned for juveniles.
Privacy Rights (Ninth Amendment and Court Interpretations)
●​
●​
●​
●​
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – Established the right to privacy.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) – Overturned anti-sodomy laws, protecting same-sex relationships.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – Legalized same-sex marriage under Equal Protection Clause.
Roe v. Wade (1973) – Established abortion as a privacy right.
Disability Rights (Civil Rights Movement for the Disabled)
●​ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) – Prohibits discrimination based on disability.
●​ Expands access to public spaces, employment, and transportation.
9.2 The Fight Against Segregation
Key Supreme Court Cases & Early Actions
●​ Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): African Americans not U.S. citizens, no constitutional rights.
●​ Emancipation Proclamation (1863): Declared Confederate slaves free but had limited
immediate impact.
Civil Rights Amendments & Backlash
●​
●​
●​
●​
●​
13th Amendment (1865): Abolished slavery.
14th Amendment (1868): Granted citizenship, Equal Protection Clause, overturned Black Codes.
15th Amendment (1870): Voting rights for Black men.
Jim Crow Laws: Enforced segregation, voter suppression.
Civil Rights Act of 1875: Prohibited private business discrimination but was overturned.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
●​ Established "separate but equal" doctrine, legitimizing segregation.
Thurgood Marshall & NAACP
●​ Challenged Plessy v. Ferguson, seeking full desegregation rather than equal facilities.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
●​ Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
●​ Ruled separate schools are inherently unequal and harm self-perception of Black students.
Southern Resistance
●​ Brown v. Board of Education II (1955): Ordered enforcement "with all deliberate speed."
●​ Milliken v. Bradley (1974): No judicial intervention for de facto segregation.
●​ Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971): Allowed busing for school integration.
Affirmative Action
●​ Regents of UC v. Bakke (1978): Struck down racial quotas but upheld affirmative action.
●​ Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): Point system favoring minorities unconstitutional.
●​ Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Race can be a factor if there is a compelling interest (e.g.,
diversity).
9.3 The Civil Rights Movement
●​ Executive Order 9981 (1948): Desegregated military.
●​ Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955): Sparked by Rosa Parks’ arrest.
MLK & Civil Disobedience
●​ Letter from Birmingham Jail: Justifies breaking unjust laws.
●​ March on Washington (1963): Advocated for Civil Rights Act.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 & Voting Rights Act of 1965
●​
●​
●​
●​
●​
Civil Rights Act (1964): Banned discrimination in public facilities, employment, and schools.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964): Upheld Civil Rights Act under Commerce Clause.
Voting Rights Act (1965): Banned literacy tests, poll taxes.
Freedom Summer (1964): Encouraged Black voter registration, met with violence.
Bloody Sunday (1965): Violent attack on voting rights marchers in Selma.
Black Panther Party
●​ Advocated for self-defense, community programs.
9.4 The Fight for Women’s Rights
19th Amendment (1920)
●​ Granted women’s suffrage.
Workplace Rights & Second Wave Feminism
●​ Equal Pay Act (1963): Equal pay for equal work.
●​ Title VII (1964): Prohibited workplace discrimination based on sex.
●​ Title IX (1972): Banned sex-based discrimination in education.
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
●​ Failed ratification due to opposition.
Supreme Court & Gender Discrimination
●​ Strict Scrutiny: Race-based discrimination.
●​ Intermediate Scrutiny: Gender-based discrimination.
●​ Rational Basis: Less discrimination (e.g., age, wealth).
Sexual Harassment Protections
●​ Quid pro quo: Sexual favors for job benefits.
●​ Hostile Work Environment: Employer responsible if aware but does nothing.