US Supreme Court and Civil Rights/Liberties

Explain the membership of the Supreme Court?

- The Court consists of nine justices (one chief justice and eight associate judges).

- These are nominated by the president

- Their appointment is confirmed by a simple senate majority

- Justices are appointed for life

- Justices usually leave service by voluntary resignation (retirement) or on dying. If necessary, they can be impeached, and if found guilty, removed from office.

- Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan in 1987, served for more tha 30 years before his retirement.

- Chief Justice currently is John Roberts (appointed by Bush in 2005).

- The newest member is Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by Biden in 2022.

Explain what strict constructionists / originalists believe in?

Originalism tends to:

- Interpret the constitution in a strict, literal fashion.

- Favour state government rights over federal government power.

- Lead to an outcome that is often seen as being 'conservative.'

- try to interpret the constitution in lin ewith its original meaning and intent (hence 'originalists').

- be appointed by Republican presidents (e.g. Roberts is a strict constructionist).

Explain the idea of loose constructionists?

- Tend to interpret the constitution in a loose fashion.

- Favour federal government power over state rights

- read elements into the document that they think the framers would have approved of.

- See the constitution as a living, dynamic document, which should be adapted to take account of the views of a contemporary society.

- Seen as liberal judges

- appointed by democratic presidents (e.g. Sotamayor or Kagan).

Which justices are seen as loose constructionists?

Sonia Sotamayor (Obama)

Elena Kagan (Obama)

Ketanji Brown Jackson (Biden)

Which justices are seen as strict constructionists?

John Roberts (Bush) (Swing Justice???)

Clarence Thomas (George H.W Bush)

Samuel Alito (Bush)

Neil Gorsuch (Trump)

Brett Kavanaugh (Trump)

Amy Coney Barrett (Trump)

Explain what a swing justice is?

Sometimes a justice can be described as a swing justice. Chief Justice John Roberts has shown a tendency to play the role in some high profile case: for example, Bostock V Clayton County, Georgia (2020) on LGBT rights, Department of Homeland Security V University of California (2020) on DACA beneficiaries; and June Medical Services V Russo (2020) on abortion rights.

What is the five-stage process to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice?

1) A vacancy occurs

2) The president instigates a search for possible nominees and interviews shortlisted candidates.

3) The president anounces their nominee.

4) The senate judiciary committee holds confirmation hearings on the nominee and makes a recommendatory vote.

5) The nomination is debated and voted on in the full senate. A simple majority is required for confirmation.

List the stages of appointment for justice Kavanaugh in 2018?

Which factors affect the president's choice of nominee?

- Shares a similar judicial philosophy to the president

- is quite young - meaning they are likely to remain on the court for longer.

- Is likley to be acceptable to the majority of the senate (especially if the government is not united).

- has an uncontroversial background - from both a judicial and personal point of view.

- Is going to be highly rated professionally (by the American Bar Association).

- Has relevant experience

How has the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices changed?

- Supreme Court nominees used to be approved mostly by overwhelming bipartisan votes (e.g. Anthony Kennedy, 97-0 in 1988).

- Nowadays, although rejections are still rare, confirmation votes are much more likely to along party lines, with pretty much all senators from the president's party voting 'yes' and those from the other party voting 'no'. E.g. Brett Kavanaugh 50-48 in 2018 - with 49 Republicans plus 1 Democrat voting 'yes' and 48 Democrats voting 'no'.

What criticisms does the appointment and confirmation process recieve?

- presidents have tended to politicise the nominations by attempting to choose justices who share their political views and judicial philosophy e.g. Obama with Kagan; Trump with Gorsuch, kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.

- The Senate has tended to politicise the confirmation process by focusing more on hot button issues (e.g. Women's rights) than on qualifications.

- Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from the presidents party tend to ask soft questions of the nominee. - Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from the opposition party attempt, through their questions, to attack or embarrass the nominee, rather than to elicit relevant information.

- Justices are now frequently confirmed on partyline votes, e.g. Kavanaugh.

- The media conduct a 'feeding frenzy' often connected with matters of trivia.

Explain the power of judicial review and give some examples?

- The power of judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution.

- It was 'found' by the court in Marbury V Madison 1803 – regarding a federal law.

- It has been used since then in a host of cases to guarantee fundamental civil rights and liberties.

- Hence the court's political importance because it rules on key political issues such as the rights of minority ethnic groups, capital punishment, gun control and freedom of speech.

- This turns the court into a quasi-legislative body – because the effects of its decisions have almost the effect of a law having been passed by congress.

- For example, Roe,V Wade 1973 had the effect comparable to an abortion rights law having been passed by Congress. It turns the court into a 'third house of the legislature', a political institution.

Explain the concepts of 'judicial activism' and 'judicial restraint'?

In a democracy, the people rule themselves through elected, accountable officials. But what if the courts - unelected and largely unaccountable - overturn the actions of these directly elected officials?

- Such behaviour by the courts is often referred to as judicial activism.

- If the courts tend to defer to the actions and decisions of elected officials - Congress and the president - this is referred to as judicial restraint.

How does an 'activist court' function?

- An activist court is one that sees itself as leading the way in the reform of US society.

- It sees it self as an equal partner with the legislative and executive branches in shaping society and acting as a safeguard of civil rights and liberties.

- It is not inclined to be deferential to Congress or to the president.

- It often uses its powers of judicial review to strike down acts or actions of elected officials.

- But the term can be used with overtones of disapproval by critics of such a court.

- In such cases, judicial activism may be labelled as 'legislating from the bench' by an 'imperial judiciary'.

Give some examples of recent cases where judicial activism has been evident?

Examples of recent cases in which the Supreme Court has clearly taken the lead in shaping US scoiety in terms of its rights and liberties are:

- Roe V Wade (1973) - guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion.

- District of Columbia V Heller (2008) - guaranteed individual gun ownership rights.

- Obergefell V Hodges (2015) - guaranteed rights to same sex marriage.

Judicial activism could also be seen in the case of Bush V Gore (2000). which effectively awarded the presidency to George Bush after a disputed count in Florida.

When does the court exercise 'restraint'?

- A restrained court is one that is more inclined to accept the actions and decisions of elected officials.

- It sees congress and the president as the shapers of US society.

- where possible, it tends to defer to the precedent laid down in previous court decisions (stare decisis).

- A more accurate term may be 'judicial deference'.

How has the Supreme Court upheld the first amendment: freedom of religion?

Zelman V Simmons-Harris (2002): the court upheld an Ohio state programme giving financial aid to parents, allowing them, if they so choose, to send their children to a religious or private school. Significance: acknowledged that state government money could be used to pay for children attending religious, private schools.

Town of Greece V Galloway (2014): the court allowed legislative bodies (such as town councils) to begin their meetings with prayer. Significance: strengthened individuals rights to practice their religion in public, even in state-constituted and state-funded bodies.

Burwell V Hobby Lobby (2010): the court overturned the requirement under Obamacare that family-owned firms had to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptionas this violated the religious beliefs of some christian-run companies. Significance: strengthened individual rights of Christian businesses to run their companies in line with their religious belief.

How has the Supreme Court upheld the first amendment: freedom of Speech?

McConnell V Federal Election Commission (2004): upheld federal law (bipartisan campaign reform act) banning soft money in election campaigns, stating that this ban did not violate freedom of speech. Significance: limiting campaign finance is not incompatible with the freedom of speech provision in the constitution.

Citizens United V FEC (2010): ruled that when it comes to rights of political speech, business corporations and labour unions have the same rights as individuals. Significance: opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations in election campaigns, mostly funnelled through political action committees (PACs).

McCutcheon V FEC (2014): struck down a 1970s limit on totals that wealthy individuals can contribute to candidates and PACs. Significance: reaffirmed giving of money to candidates and PACs as a fundamental right.

How does the court uphold the second amendment: gun control?

District of Columbia V Heller (2008): Guaranteed individual gun ownership rights.

McDonald V City of Chicago (2010): extended the rights announced in Heller to states and local governments. Significance: never before had the courts ruled this interpretation of the second amendment.

How does the supreme court uphold the eighth amednment: death penalty?

Roper V Simmons (2005): declared it tobe unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crime they committed when under the age of 18.

Glossip V Gross (2015): declared that lethal injection did not infringe the Eighth Amendment's ban on 'cruel and unusual punishments'. Significance: the court was clearly seen as telling us what eithteenth century words mean in twenty-first century USA.

What has the Supreme Cort ruled on abortion?

Roe V Wade (1973): ruled that the state law of Texas forbidding abortion was unconstitutional. Significance: guaranteed a woman's right to choose an abortion as a constituitionally protected right.

Gonzales V Carhart (2007): upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act (2003), which banned late-term abortions. Significance: established that a woman's right to choose an abortion could be legally limited.

Whole Woman's Health V Hellerstedt (2016): struck down as unconstitutional two parts of a Texas state law concerning abortion provision. Significance: a woman's right to choose was held to have constitutionally defined limits.

June Medical Services V Russo (2020): Struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana state law significantly limiting abortion provision in the state. Significance: even after Trump had appointed two Conservative justices to the court, pro-life groups remained disappointed in their aim to significantly limit abortion provision.

What has the Supreme Court ruled on marriage equality?

United States V Winsdor (2013): declared the Defence of Marriage Act (1996) to be unconstitutional and that it is unconstitutional to treat same-sex married couples differently from other married couples in terms of federal benefits.

Obergefell V Hodges (2015): declared that state bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. Significance: shows how the court can reshape US society on a contemporary and contentious issue.

Which points suggest the US Supreme Court is a political institution?

- Members are appointed by a politician (president)

- Appointments are confirmed by politicians (the senate).

- It makes decisions based on issues that feature in elections (e.g. abortion, gun control, marriage equality) and over which the two main parties disagree.

- Some of its decisions have a quasi-legislative effect: it is as if a new law has been passed, and passing law is what politicians do.

- Some have described the court as 'a third house of the legislature.'

Which points suggest the US Supreme Court is not a political institution?

- Its members are judges, not politicians.

- The court is independent - not subject to political pressure.

- Justices do not involve themselves in party politics, elections, campaigning or endorsing candidates.

- There is no such thing as a Democrat justice or republican justice.

- Members make decisions based on legal and constitutional arguement, not political ideology.

Give some examples of when the Supreme Court has ruled the president or congress is exceeding their constitutional power?

National Federation of Independent Business V Sibelius (2012): upheld most of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (2010) but ruled that the act's requirement that every American had either to get health insurance or to pay a penalty could not be justified by congress's powers under the commerce clause, only by its power to collect taxes.

National Labor Relations Board V Noel Canning (2014): declared President Obama's 'recess appointments' to the NLRB in 2012 to be unconstitutional as the senate was not technically in recess.

Trump V Vance (2020): declared President Trump's claim of immunity from local law enforcement unconstitutional. Significance: the court shows its power to say what congress and the president can and cannot do according to its interpretation of their respective constitutional powers.

How does Congress check on the power of the Supreme Court?

- The Senate has the power to confirm or reject appointments.

- Congress fixes the numerical size of the court.

- Congress has the power of impeachment of individual judges, even the threat of impeachemnt is a check because it may act as a disincentive for a justice to completely overrule a decision or action carried out by the elected congress.

- Congress can initiate constiutional amendments that would have the effect of overturning the court's decision.

How does the president check on the power of the Supreme Court?

- The president has the power to nominate justices.

- Presidents decide whether to throw their political weight behind a decision of the court, thereby either enhancing or decreasing the court's percieved legitimacy.

What other checks exist of Supreme Court power?

- The court has no power of initiation: it must wait for cases to be brought before it. (Appelate Court)

- The court has no enforcement powers: it is dependent on the other branches of government and/or the rule of law for implementation of and obedience to court decisions.

- Public opinion: if the court makes decisions that are regarded as wrong by a majority of the public, the court loses some of its legitimacy.

- The court is checked by itself - by decisions it has already made.

- The court can overturn a previous decision of the court: for example, the decision in Ramos V Louisiana (2020) overturned the court's decisions in Apodaca V Oregon (1972).

- The court is checked by the constitution - although certain parts of the constitution are open to the court's interpretation, other parts are very specific.

Which points suggest the Supreme Court has too much power?

- The court gave itself the power of judicial review.

- It has declared more acts of Congress unconstitutional as the decades have passed.

- It has made decisions that are out of line with the majority of public opinion.

- It is an unelected body.

- It is a largely unaccountable body.

- Some critics would say it has abused its power to bring about significant policy change (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage).

- It could be seen in this way when justices take the approach of loose constructionism.

Which points suggest the Supreme Court does not have too much power?

- It is checked by Congress, which may initiate constitutional amendments, effectively overriding court decisions.

- Congress has the power of impeachment.

- It has no initiative power: it must wait for cases to come before it.

- It is dependent upon the rule of law and other branches of government to enforce its decisions.

- Public opinion is a restraining force on the court's power.

- It is checked by the words of the constitution where they are precise and not open to interpretation by the court.

Compare the origins of the US and UK Supreme Court?

- US Supreme Court was created by the founding fathers in 1787, whereas the UK Supreme Court came into being after an act of parliament in 2009.

- The US Supreme Court was written into the constitution (Article 3). the Uk Supreme Court was the most recent part of the UK court structure to be created.

- The US Supreme Court was the only federal court created at the time. The UK Court replaced the Appelate Committee of the House of Lords as the nation's highest court.

- The US Supreme Court shared building space with congress until 1935, then moved to a purpose built building until 1935. The UK Supreme Court was given converted building space in Parliament Square.

How do the differences between the two courts represent the structural and cultural differences between the UK and US?

Structural: Whereas the USA is based on a system of 'separated institutions, sharing powers' and checks and balances. The UK is based on a system of fused powers in which, until very recently, all three branches of government overlapped.

Cultural: whereas the USA came into existence at one given moment - with the writing of the federal constitution in 1787 - the UK has gradually evolved over centuries without a codified constitution.

How does the appointment, membership and tenure of justices differ between the UK and US Supreme Court?

Appointment

- In the US appointments are nominated by the president and confirmed by a majority vote of the senate. In the UK appointments are nominated by the judicial appointments commission and no confirmation is required.

Membership

There are currently 9 members of the US court and 12 members of the UK court. The US court has 3 women and the UK court has two. The US court is presided over by the chief justice and the UK court is presided over by the president of the Supreme Court.

Tenure

Justices on the US court have a life tenure, unless subject to impeachment, trial and removal by congress. UK Justices must retire at by 75 . They can be removed by the monarch following an adress by both houses of parliament.

Compare the process of judicial review between the US and UK Supreme Court?

- The power to judicial reveiew in the US court is not explicitly granted in the constitution. It was 'found by the court in Marbury V Madison (1803). In the UK judical review does not allow the court to declare acts of parliamnet unconstitutional because the court operates in a system ruled by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.

- In the US judicial reveiew is the power to declare Acts or actions of the federal or state governments unconstitutional. In the UK the court can declare actions of ministers to be ultra vires i.e. beyond the powers.

- Judicial review has given both courts increasing levels of power.

How doe the powers and roles of the US and UK Supreme Court differ?

- The US Court is the final court of appeal for federal cases, it also hears cases on appeal from state supreme couts. The UK court is the final court of appeal for all UK civil cases and criminal cases in Eng, Scot and NI.

-The US court rules on the constitutionality of federal and state laws (judicial review) and rules on the constitutionality of actions of the federal and state executives. It also rules on the meaning of the constitution and acts as an interpreter and guardian of civil rights and liberties.

- The UK court cannot overrule or strike down laws passed by parlimaent though it can interpret laws passed by parliament and rules whether ministers have acted ultra vires.

What is judicial independence?

Judicial independence is a vital ingredient in a democracy to ensure that judges are free from external pressures. Such pressure might come from: the executive, the legislature, interest groups, the media, other judges - especially senior judges.

Judicial independece is protected in both countries by the fact that:

- Judges have immunity from prosecution for any acts thgey carry out as judges.

- They have immunity from lawsuits of defamation for what they say while hearing cases.

- Judges' alaries cannot be reduced.

Compare judicial independence between the UK and US Supreme Court?

- Judicial independence in the US court is enhanced by life tenure.

- Judicial independence is strengthened when the justices decide a case in a way that is clearly not in line with the views of the president who appointed them (e.g. Clinton appointees who found against Clinton in Clinton V Jones). In the UK Court jducial independence was previously undermined when the Law Lords sat as part of the legislature.

- In the US Court it would appear that judicial independence is seemingley undermined when judges appear to make politicised judgements. (e.g. Bush V Gore).

- In the UK Court there are still some ambiguities in roles of Lord Chancellor, Attorney general and Solicitor General.

- The UK court has recently come under pressure from attacks by politicians, notably about the High Court's ruling on triggering article 50 in the Brexit process.

- The US Court has come under pressire when presidents make verbal attacks on the judiciary or on individual judges (e.g. trump over the Court's decision on his travel ban (2017)).

- The UK Court has recieved recent emdia attacks on the judiciery as 'enemies of the people' after judges rules that Brexit needed parliamentary consent (2016).

How can the structural approach be used when comparing the US and UK Supreme Courts?

Structural: Focus on structures – powers and limits of a political process or institution

Appointment of justices

A comparison of the structure of the process of appointing justices in each country.

Powers and roles

The differences in the powers and checks on these powers in each country due to the different political structures in the USA and the UK. e.g. Parliamentary sovereignity; constitutional checks and balances seperation of powers, federalism vs a unitary system. Comparing the power of judicial review in each country.

Judicial independence

The concept of the seperation of powers in the USA as compared with the fusion of powers in the UK system.

How can the cultural approach be used when comparing the US and UK Supreme Courts?

Cultural: focus on political parties or pressure groups

Origin of the Supreme Court

Created by the constitution in the USA whereas in the UK the Supreme Court has been created only recently - making it easier to ensure complete independence of justices.

Appointment of justices

The factors which influence a president's choice of nominee to the US court - how do these differ from how a Prime Minister chooses a new justice? The US president usually nominates a justice who shares their political opinions or at least has acted in ways which complement the president's political views and ideology e.g. a Republican president is very likely to nominate a Conservative justice.

Judicial independence

The pressure that judges come under from the media at times. Examples of when either the Supreme Court has been forced to make political judgements e.g. in the case of Brexit in the UK and the Bush V Gore election in the US.

How can the rational approach be used when comparing the US and UK Supreme Courts?

Rational: focuses on individuals – guided by their own influence rather than groups or strutcures.

Appointment of justices

The factors which influence a president's choice of nominee to the US court - how do these differ from how a Prime Minister chooses a new justice? The US President has significant ability to fill a vacant position with someone who suits their self-interest e.g. their legacy.

Judicial independence

How the concept of life tenure may influence judicial behavior in both countries.

Define what civil rights are?

Positive acts of government designed to protect people agaisnt arbitary or discriminatory treatment by government or individuals.

Define what racial and ethnic equality is?

When people of all races and ethnic backgrounds have equal access to services, institutions, rights and freedoms.

Define what constitutional rights are?

Those individual rights provided and protected by the US Constitution.

Define what civil liberties are?

Those liberties, mostly spelt out in the constitution, that guarantee the protection of people, expression and property from arbitary interference by governement.

How have civil rights been advanced in the US?

Civil rights of minority ethnic groups in the USA, and the pursuit of racial and ethnic equality, have been advanced through various political means:

+ Constitutional amendment to ensure and protect constitutional rights e.g. 24th amendment 1964

+ legislation e.g. 1964 voting rights act

+ Decision of the Supreme Court e.g. Brown V Board of Education 1954

+ Presidential leadership e.g. Eisenhower's use of federal troops in Little Rock 1957

+ Citizen action e.g. March for Jobs and Freedom 1963, Black Lives Matter 2020.

+ public policy e.g. policing reform post BLM protests.

How have civil rights of minority groups been advanced in the US?

Civil rights of other societal groups relating to, for example, gender disability and sexual orientation have also been advanced through a similar variety of political means:

+ Constitutional amendment e.g. Nineteenth amendment - women's right to vote 1920

+ legislation e.g. Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 - rights of the disabled.

- Decision of the Supreme Court e.g. Obergefell V Hodges - right to same sex marriage 2015

Define what affirmative action is?

A programme giving members of a previosly disadvantaged minority group a head-start in ,for example, higher education or employment. Affirmative action promoted equality of results rather than merely equality of opportunity.

What are the differences between equality of opportunity and equality of rights?

-Equality of opportunity focuses on giving the same rights and opportunities to all, whereas equality of results focuses on outcomes.

- Equality of opportunity focuses on the theory of rights and of equality rather than its outcome and regards affirmative action programmes as 'reverse discrimination.'

- Equality of results focuses on giving advantages to previoulsy disadvanatged groups in order to bring about equality in reality, not just in thoery. Advocates for schemes like quotas.

- Equality of opportunity believes that all rights should be 'colour blind.'

In which cases has the Supreme Court ruled against affirmative action?

Gratz V Bollinger (2003)

The university of Michigan's affirmative action based admissions programme was unconstitutional becuase it was too 'mechanistic'; all minority students were automatically awarded bonus marks regardless of whether they experienced disadvantage.

Parents Involved V Seattle School District (2007)

It is unconstitutional to assign students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieveing racial balance.

Fisher V University of Texas (2013)

The university's use of race in its admission policy must be subjected to a stricter scrutiny becuase it involved possible discrimination against white stsudents.

In which cases has the Supreme Court ruled in favour of affirmative action?

Grutter V Bollinger (2003)

The University of Michigan's law school admissions programme was upheld as constitutional becuase it used a more individualised approach.

Fisher V University of Texas (2016)

The university's admission programme based on affirmative action was constitutional (A rehearing of the 2013 case)

List some advanatges of affirmative action?

- Leads to greater levels of diversity

- Rights previous wrongs - those previously disadvanatged are now advantaged.

- Opens up areas of education and employment that otherwise would be out of reach of disadvanatged minorities.

- In education, creates a more diverse student body, therby promoting integration and racial tolerance.

List some disadvantages of affirmative action?

- Advantage for one group leads to disadvantage for other groups - 'reverse discrimination'.

- Can lead to minorities being admitted to higher education courses and jobs for which they are ill-equipped to cope.

- Can be condescending to minorities.

- Perpeptuates a society based on colour and race.

What evidence shows that voting rights have widened in the US?

There have been significant strides in widening voting rights through:

+ Legislation (e.g. voting rights Act 1965)

+ Voter registration drives among black and hispanic communities.

+ Voter turnout drives among the same groups.

But concerns still exist about:

+ the introduction by some states of a photo ID requirement at polling stations.

+ the removal of voting rights following criminal convictions

What evidence shows that minority representation has increased in the US?

+ In congress: black members up from 16 in 1979 to 57 in 2020. Hispanic/latinx members up from 6 in 1979 to 51 in 2020. In 2021 23% of congress identified as black or hispanic.

+ In presidential candidates: Barack Obama won the democratic nomination and the presidency; six minority ethnic candidates ran for the democratic nomination in 2020 e.g. Kamala Harris. Kamala became the first female, the first African-American and the first Asian- American Vice president in 2021.

+ In the president's cabinet: Obama's initial cabinet (2009) was the most racially diverse to date - out of 15 heads of executive departements, seven were from minoruty ethnic groups; George W Bush (2002)-09) was served throughout by people of colour as secretary of state. Trump's initaial cabinet (2017) included only three members from ethnic minorities. Joe biden's first cabinet included tem women and eight minority ethnic Americans, from a total of 25 members.

What immigration reform has occurred in the US in recent times?

It has been fuelled by concerns over illegal immigration, security fears foloowing 9/11 and the fate of those Americans brought illegally to the USA by their parents in previous decades.

+ George W bush tried to get immigration reform through congress, but failed.

+ Obama got congress to pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien minors (DREAM) act.

+ Obama also created the DACA programme (Defferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) in 2012, which gave some individuals who had entered the country as the children of illegal immigrants the temporary right to live, study and work in the USA.

+ During the 2016 election, Trump announced his intention to end the DACA programme, make the deportation of illegal immigrants a top priority and build a wall along the USA-Mexico border. By 2020 he had closed DACA and built a small section of wall.

+ In January 2018, trump's intention to carry through on his threat to end the DACA programme was a contributory factor in a short-term shutdown of parts of federal governement.

What are the positive effects of immigration reform on equality?

- Development, relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM): stopped the deportation of undocumented immigrants who met certain criteria (e.g. they had been brought to the country as a minor).

- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): allowed 1.5 million people who had been brought into the country illegally as children to continue to live and work in the USA. This is very similar to the DREAM Act described above.

- Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA): designed to allow undocumented immigrants who had had children born in the USA to live and work in the country.

What are the negative effects of immigration reform on equality?

- DREAM was ended by Donald Trump

- DACA was ended by Donald Trump

- DAPA was overturned by Donald Trump

- Framework for immigration reform and border security introduced by president Trump, part of his policy seperated illegal immigrant children from the rest of their family if they were arrested trying to cross the border. president Biden issued a series of executive orders to repeal these policies.

How does the protection of rights differ between the US and the UK?

The most signifcant difference is that in the USA, rights are entrenched in a condified constitution, whereas in the UK, with no codified constitution, rights are not entrenched and can be changed simply by an act of parliament. This shows that different structures produce different outcomes.

Where do we find the rights of citizens in the US?

+ Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X of the Constitution)

+ Later amendments, e.g. 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th.

+ Laws passed by congress e.g.:

- various civil rights acts

- Voting rights Act 1965

- Americans with disabilities Act 1990

- Fair pay act 1990

+ Decisions of the Supreme Court e.g.:

- Roe V Wade 1973

- Obergefell V Hodges 2015

Where do we find the rights of citizens in the UK?

+ Acts of parliament e.g. Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law.

+ Decisions of the courts that protect citizens against unlawful acts of government, e.g.:

- extent of government spying powers

- length of time police can hold DNA of acquited persons

- whole life sentences must be reviewable

- employers must respect religious beliefs of employees.

How effectively are rights protected in the US?

Effectiveness of the protection of rights is key to a liberal democracy. Constitutions and laws don't in themselves deliver rights.

+ Some see the protection of the rights of one group leading to a threat to the rights of another group: for example, same-sex marriage rights as opposed to the rights of groups and individuals that take an orthodox view of marriage.

+ this issue has led to court battles in both the USA and the UK.

+ Effective protection of rights needs to be balanced against the need for security in the light of terrorist threats.

+ This is another issue that has led to much debate in both countries.

+ But a combination of legislative and judicial action means that the rights of racial minorities, women and those with physical disabilities are better protected than they were half a century ago.

How do interest groups protect rights in the US?

Interest groups have played a significant role in both counrties to promote the effective protection of rights e.g. Liberty and Stonewall. They have done thsi through various means:

+ In the USA, interest groups try to bring influence on the legislature and the executive but most especially on the judiciary. There is much more focus on the judiciary in the USA than in the UK because of the power of judicial review.

+ Interest groups may legally and financially support the bringing of potentially landmark cases to the Supreme Court for its ruling. For example, Brown V Topeka (1954) was effectively brought by the black civil rights interest group of the National Association for the Advancement of coloured people. In June 2020, a coalition of LGBT groups combined to file a lawsuit agaisnt the Trump administration, which had announced the rolling back of Obama-era transgender healthcare protections.

+ They may also submit amicus curiae briefs to the courts.

+ they also engage in building public support.

+ In the UK, interest groups try to bring influence on Parliament, relevant government departments and the Supreme Court. They also aim to build public support.

+ Interest group success in both countries will be determined by a number of variables such as financial backing, the balance of public opinion, strength of countervailing groups, access to the media, etc.

How can the cultural approach be used when comparing the protection of rights in the US?

Cultural: focus on political parties or pressure groups

Bill of rights (USA)

The US Constitution and the rights enshirnied within it are central to US society and to an American's sense of identity.

Other constitutional amendments (USA)

The US Constitution and the rights enshrined within it are central to US society and to an American's sense of identity.

How can the structural approach be used when comparing the protection of rights?

Structural: Focus on structures – powers and limits of a political process or institution

Bill of Rights (USA)

The bill of rights consists of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution - a fundamental structure of the US political process.

Other constitutional amendments (USA)

Civil rights are protected by the US Constitution - a fundamental structure of the US political process.

Laws made by Congress (USA)

Discussion of the legislative process in the USA.

Decisions of the Supreme Court (USA)

Discussion of the judicial process in the USA.

Acts of Parliament (UK)

Discussion of the legislative process in the UK

Decisions made by the courts (UK)

Discussion of the judicial process in the UK.