ap gov Equal Protection, Race, and Education cases

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Case details: Racial segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Relevant Background: Homer Plessy challenged Louisiana's law requiring separate railway accommodations for Black and white passengers.

Constitutional Issue: Does racial segregation violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Ruling: The Court upheld segregation under the separate but equal doctrine.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Allowed legally enforced racial segregation for decades. Its doctrine was later rejected in public education by Brown v. Board of Education.

Mendez v. Westminster (1947)

Case details: School segregation of Mexican American students in California.

Relevant Background: Mexican American families challenged school districts in Orange County that separated Mexican American children into different schools.

Constitutional Issue: Did the segregation of Mexican American students violate their legal rights?

Ruling: The federal appeals court upheld the ruling against the school districts, finding the segregation unlawful under the circumstances.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Helped end de jure segregation of Mexican American students in California and influenced later civil rights efforts. California repealed remaining school-segregation provisions in 1947.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Case details: School segregation and equal protection.

Relevant Background: Black students were required to attend separate public schools from white students under state segregation laws.

Constitutional Issue: Does racial segregation in public schools violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Ruling: Yes. The Court unanimously ruled that separate public schools are inherently unequal.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Rejected the separate but equal doctrine in public education and became a landmark of the civil rights movement. Desegregation implementation was addressed further in Brown II (1955).

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

Case details: Racial gerrymandering and redistricting.

Relevant Background: North Carolina created a district with an unusual shape to increase Black representation following federal redistricting requirements.

Constitutional Issue: Can drawing electoral districts primarily based on race violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Ruling: Yes. A district drawn predominantly on racial grounds can trigger strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Established that voters can challenge racial gerrymandering in court, even when the districting plan is intended to increase minority representation.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Case details: Legislative redistricting and equal representation.

Relevant Background: Tennessee had not redrawn its legislative districts for decades, leaving urban voters underrepresented as populations changed.

Constitutional Issue: Can federal courts hear challenges to legislative districts that allegedly violate equal protection?

Ruling: Yes. The Court held that the challenge was justiciable rather than a nonjusticiable political question.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Opened the door to federal court review of legislative apportionment and helped establish the principle of “one person, one vote” through later cases.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Case details: Affirmative action and university admissions.

Relevant Background: Allan Bakke challenged UC Davis Medical School's admissions program, which reserved a number of seats for certain minority applicants.

Constitutional Issue: Can universities use race in admissions without violating the Equal Protection Clause?

Ruling: The Court struck down the specific quota system. The controlling judgment allowed race to be considered as one factor in admissions at the time.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Rejected rigid racial quotas while permitting certain race-conscious admissions approaches under the legal standards then in effect. Later Supreme Court decisions, especially Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC (2023), substantially changed the rules.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Case details: Affirmative action and holistic college admissions.

Relevant Background: A white applicant challenged the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as one factor in a holistic admissions process.

Constitutional Issue: Could a university consider race as one factor to achieve the educational benefits of diversity?

Ruling: At the time, the Court upheld the law school's admissions policy as narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in educational diversity.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: Supported limited race-conscious admissions for many years. Its framework was effectively overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC in 2023, which sharply restricted the use of race in admissions.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Case details: Japanese American wartime exclusion and civil liberties.

Relevant Background: During World War II, Fred Korematsu challenged his conviction for violating an order excluding people of Japanese ancestry from designated areas.

Constitutional Issue: Did the wartime exclusion order violate constitutional protections?

Ruling: The Court upheld Korematsu's conviction at the time.

How it is implemented/how it changed things: The decision became a notorious example of civil liberties being sacrificed during wartime. In 2018, the Supreme Court explicitly repudiated Korematsu as wrongly decided.