civil rights and EPC

-The below attachments, along with the teacher-generated resources, are designed to help you prepare for each test.  

-Note that if the topic includes a page number in the book it is for a topic that we have not directly addressed in class, but will still be on our test.

-You also always want to read the entire chapter, even if not all of the pages have been assigned.  

-All tests (except for the first test of each semester), will include questions repeated from past tests

Government or Private Actors MAY

Government or Private Actors MAY NOT

Racial segregation

x

Racial integration efforts

x

Affirmative action

x

Military personnel decisions

Sexual harassment

Action

Restricted Minority Rights

Protected Minority Rights

Legislation

Court Action

Citizen- State Interaction

Ban on racial segregation in schools as a result of inherently unequal treatment.

x

x

x

x

Same sex marriage/ relationships across states. 

x

x

x

x

The integration of races in schools and the countries contributions. 

x

x

x

x

Racial Discrimination against African-Americans (favored rights of the majority)

Poll taxes 

Literary tests 

Plessy v ferguson 

Scott v sandford

Jim crow laws 

US v. Cruikshank (1876)

De Jure segregation

De Facto Segregation-

Redlining

Racial Discrimination against African-Americans (favored rights of the minority)

15th amendment

Brown v. Board (1954)

13th amendment 

Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007) (pg. 157)

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

Voting rlights act

Racial Discrimination against Hispanic-Americans

Plyer v. doe 

Hernandez v. Texas

Citizenship Clause

Racial Discrimination against Asian-Americans

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Gender Discrimination

Sexual Harassment 

National Organization for Women

Couverture

Reed v. Reed

19th amendment 

Title IX

LGBTQ+ Discrimination

Military and Transgender people serving. 

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)-

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)-

Hernandez v. Texas (1954)- 

• Pete Hernandez, an agricultural worker, was indicted for the murder of Joe Espinoza by an all-Anglo (white) grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. Claiming that Mexican-Americans were barred from the jury commission that selected juries, and from petit juries, Hernandez' attorneys tried to quash the indictment. Moreover, Hernandez tried to quash the petit jury panel called for service, because persons of Mexican descent were excluded from jury service in this case. A Mexican-American had not served on a jury in Jackson County in over 25 years and thus, Hernandez claimed that Mexican ancestry citizens were discriminated against as a special class in Jackson County. The trial court denied the motions. Hernandez was found guilty of murder and sentenced by the all-Anglo jury to life in prison. In affirming, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that "Mexicans are...members of and within the classification of the white race as distinguished from members of the Negro Race" and rejected the petitioners' argument that they were a "special class" under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the court pointed out that "so far as we are advised, no member of Mexican nationality" challenged this classification as white or Caucasian. Is it a denial of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause to try a defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or ancestry have, because of that race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state? Yes

• - expanded protection to hispanics to limit discrimnation. 

Reed v. Reed (1971)- 

• The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates. After the death of their adopted son, both Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their son's estate (the Reeds were separated). According to the Probate Code, Cecil was appointed administrator and Sally challenged the law in court. Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)- 

• Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling. Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), be overruled?

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• The court case that set the standard of Separate but equal.

Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Slave moves to a free state, his owner dies and it is complicated if he is free or gets passed down through family lineage. The question is citizenship and rights passed down to POC. Also if you are a slave brought to a free state, do you become free?What kind of due process do slaves have? They made a ruling that they cannot be free or have due process rights. No constitutional protections are established for POC. 

13th Amendment

• Freed the slaves

Plyler v. Doe (1982)- 

• A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child. Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)- 

• In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February 1942, two months after Pearl Harbor. A Japanese-American man living in San Leandro, Fred Korematsu, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order to relocate. Korematsu was arrested and convicted of violating the order. He responded by arguing that Executive Order 9066 violate the Fifth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Korematsu's conviction. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?

US v. Cruikshank (1876)

• As long as it is private actors going after people for race, there is nothing the government can do. Even though those people were murderers, that is a state crime that the state themselves would have to go after. There is nothing they can do because the government is not behind those threats. 

Brown v. Board (1954)

• The court case that ended segregation in schools. It determined that the standard in Plessy was not equal. 

• The problem with this case was actually getting states and schools to follow this.

• Caused a political shift throughout the country. The south became republican and the north became democratic

• THe last school to stop segregation was in 2018 in Cleveland Mississippi. Gerrymandering also played a role in this based on how they restricted their schools. 

Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007) (pg. 157)

• Seattle schools created a policy where students could pick their school, instead of just going to their local school. 

  • Race was used as a tiebreaker with integration being a district goal

• Holding: government cannot desegregate a school unless that school had previously been segregated by the government

Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

• Detroit - #2 most segregated city in america 

• Neighborhood segregation = school segregation 

• Busing to take students to a school outside their neighborhood 

• Court stuck down busing plan that involved both 

15th Amendment

• Allowed African American men to vote

National Organization for Women- 

• Since our founding in 1966, NOW's purpose is to take action through intersectional grassroots activism to promote feminist ideals, lead societal change, eliminate discrimination, and achieve and protect the equal rights of all women and girls in all aspects of social, political, and economic life.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)- 

• Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. (1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

• (2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?

Couverture- 

• Couverture is defined as a historical legal status of a married woman. Under coverture, a wife is her husband's property, can't enter into a contract, doesn't have rights to her children, and can't control real property.

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)- 

• Gerald Bostock, a gay man, began working for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare services coordinator in 2003. During his ten-year career with Clayton County, Bostock received positive performance evaluations and numerous accolades. In 2013, Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Shortly thereafter, Bostock received criticism for his participation in the league and for his sexual orientation and identity generally. During a meeting in which Bostock’s supervisor was present, at least one individual openly made disparaging remarks about Bostock’s sexual orientation and his participation in the gay softball league. Around the same time, Clayton County informed Bostock that it would be conducting an internal audit of the program funds he managed. Shortly afterwards, Clayton County terminated Bostock allegedly for “conduct unbecoming of its employees.” Within months of his termination, Bostock filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Three years later, in 2016, he filed a pro se lawsuit against the county alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court dismissed his lawsuit for failure to state a claim, finding that Bostock’s claim relied on an interpretation of Title VII as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, contrary to a 1979 decision holding otherwise, the continued which was recently affirmed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017). Bostock appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court. In addition to noting  procedural deficiencies in Bostock’s appeal, the Eleventh Circuit panel pointed out that it cannot overrule a prior panel’s holding in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit en banc decision. Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompass discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation?

Poll taxes- 

• One of the many discriminatory methods was the poll tax, which required voters to pay a fee in order to enter the polling places to cast their ballots. Due to the disproportionate levels of poverty among African Americans in the Southern states, many of them – as well as poor Whites – were excluded from voting.

Jim Crow

• Laws that were made to incriminate POC easier. 

• Very specific things that could incriminate POC and have them sent to jail where they could not pay the fines. As a result one of the options they could do was work on a farm to pay off their debt. 

19th Amendment

• Allowed women to vote

Gaines v. Canada (1938)

• Lloyd Gaines graduated from Lincoln University, a public university specifically for black students, in 1935. Because Lincoln University did not have a law school, he applied to the University of Missouri Law School. He was refused admission and told that admitting him would be contrary to Missouri’s state constitution, laws, and public policy. Gaines argued that this denial of admission violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and sued to force the Board of Regents to admit him. The circuit court denied his petitions, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

De Jure segregation- Segregation enacted by federal, state and local government

• The federal government began “redlining” neighborhoods in the 1930s 

  • Metrics used included race as a major factor 

  • Then the FHA and VA refused to insure mortgages in redlined areas. 

    • Local decisions before/after redlining furthered poverty in redlined areas 

    • Overt acts of de jure segregation ended as a result of the civil rights acts of 1964  which banned housing discrimination. 

De Facto Segregation- segregation enacted by private actors without direct government involvement

• Violence and intimidation against black families trying to live in white communities 

• Deed clauses and HOAs that prohibited sales to black families.

Literacy Tests

• The literacy tests were done on POC to determine if they were able to vote 

• They were intended for them to not be able to pass and be very confusing.

Redlining

• 2019 Toledo Blade research showed that in the 15 historically redlined areas, the current poverty rate is 40%. None of the 15 majority black.

Racial covenants in home deeds

Civil Disobedience-

•  civil Disobedience argued that what a person believed to be right is more important than what was mandated by the government. It states: 'Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison

Title IX- 

• Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools and other education programs that receive federal funding. It was passed in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments.

Citizenship Clause- 

• The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens. It also guarantees equal protection under the law. 

Regents v. Bakke (1978)

• Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

• Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

• No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by the government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. 

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

• Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard College over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants and white applicants in favor of “underrepresented” minority applicants. Harvard admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

• May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions?

• If so, does Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

• The Harvard admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion

Affirmative Action- 

• Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.

Voting Rights Act of 1965- 

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B.

Civil Rights Act of 1964- 

• This act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964, prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal. It was the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction

Pre-war

reconstruction

Jim crow

Dred scott

13th,14th,15th amendments, Crusinshneck 

Poll taxes, Lit tests, Plessy