Federalism and the History of Civil Rights Legislation and Court Rulings

Federalism and the Distribution of Power

  • Definition of Federalism: Federalism is the conceptual framework of dividing power between the national (federal) government and the state governments.
  • Historical Context and Debates:
    • During the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, a significant debate emerged regarding the strength of the national government.
    • Opponents of a strong central government argued that a powerful national entity would inevitably infringe upon and take away individual rights.
    • Proponents of state-level power believed state governments were easier to control because they were "closer to home" and more apt to rule on localized issues affecting daily life, compared to a distant central authority residing several states away.
  • The Growth of National Power: Despite initial hesitations, the Constitution established a powerful national government. Historical milestones in its expansion include:
    • The Railroad Industry: The federal government began regulating the railroads, setting transportation rates and requiring fair and equal treatment for service payers—a role they had never previously occupied.
    • The Meat Industry: Following the public outcry sparked by the publication of Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, the government intervened to protect citizens from the conditions within the meatpacking industry.
    • The Great Depression: After the stock market crash and widespread bank failures, the federal government initiated unprecedented regulations on banks and the stock market.
    • Civil Rights Movement: The national government expanded its role by overturning local state decisions regarding segregation laws and voting restrictions.
  • Pushback Against Expansion: Every expansion of federal power typically results in a corresponding loss of state power. Critics often argue that such expansions are unreasonable, illegitimate, or grant the federal government excessive power.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

  • Geographic Context: The Heart of Atlanta Motel was located in the "heart" of Atlanta, Georgia. Atlanta is situated in the northern third of the state, centered on the East-West axis, and not located near a state border.
  • Legal Arguments from the Motel:
    • The motel owner argued that because the business was stationary and did not cross state lines, it was a matter of intrastate commerce, which is the purview of the state, not the federal government.
    • The owner claimed a right to choose whom to serve, including the choice to refuse service to Black customers, asserting the federal government had no business interfering.
  • Federal Counter-Arguments:
    • The Supreme Court accepted the argument that since the motel served customers coming from out of state, the business was involved in national (interstate) trade.
    • Lawyers further argued that the business benefited from taxpayer-funded infrastructure, specifically the interstate highway system developed in the 1950s, which facilitated travel and brought customers directly to the motel’s door.
  • Supreme Court Ruling: The Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a legitimate exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, mandating the desegregation of public accommodations.

The Supreme Court of the 1960s

  • Philosophical Shift: The 1960s Court was notable for decisions advancing civil rights and the rights of the individual.
  • The Miranda Warning: A direct result of Supreme Court decisions, the police are now required to inform individuals of their rights upon arrest. The verbatim warning is:
    • "You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you."
  • Modern Comparison: The current Supreme Court (2020s) may differ in its interpretation, often favoring individual choices or state rights over national desegregation goals, as seen in recent adjustments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Interracial Marriage

  • Anti-Miscegenation Laws: These were state laws that made it a crime for a Black person and a White person to marry. Virginia was one of many states (16 in total at the time of the ruling) with such statutes.
  • Background of the Case:
    • Richard Loving (a White construction worker) and Mildred Loving (a Black woman and daughter of a sharecropper) grew up in Caroline County, Virginia.
    • The couple married but were arrested in 1958 at approximately 2:00 AM.
    • They spent five years in a "Negro ghetto" in Washington D.C., facing unemployment and loneliness. After one of their children was hit by a car, Mildred Loving wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who referred them to the ACLU.
  • Legal Strategy: Attorneys Bernard Cohen and Phil Grishkoff took the case for no fee. They argued that anti-miscegenation laws were "slavery statutes" meant to keep Black people in the "badges and bonds of slavery."
  • Impact of the Case:
    • The Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage in all 16 states where they existed.
    • Precedent for 2015: This ruling provided the legal logic for the 2015 Supreme Court decision (Obergefell v. Hodges) that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, asserting the government cannot tell consenting adults who they can marry.

Civil Rights Act of 1968 and De Facto Segregation

  • De Jure vs. De Facto Segregation: While the 1964 Act targeted de jure segregation (segregation by law), the 1968 Act targeted de facto segregation (segregation by practice, habit, or custom).
  • Redlining: A practice in the real estate and banking industries where a "red line" was mentally or physically drawn on a map, and Black families were prohibited from buying property across that line.
  • Property Values: Segregation was often maintained by an industry belief that Black homeowners lowered property values. In reality, property value is determined by square footage, number of bedrooms/bathrooms, and neighborhood aesthetics, not the race of the neighbor.
  • Provisions of the 1968 Act:
    • It made it a federal crime to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing based on race, religion, gender, or national origin.
    • It expanded banking access for women, allowing them to obtain credit cards in their own names.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

  • Self-Segregation: A phenomenon where people choose neighborhoods based on proximity to family, specific cultural foods, or similarity to themselves, which leads to racially isolated schools even without segregation laws.
  • The Busing Strategy: To achieve a racial balance in classrooms, some school districts (notably in North Carolina) used buses to transport students from Black neighborhoods to schools in White neighborhoods and vice-versa.
  • Philosophical Rationale: The Court held that if the goal is to end segregation, busing is a legitimate tool. The logic was that while adults (ages 25–40) might have "baked-in" racial stigmas, children (starting at age 5) could grow up with a different belief system by interacting with classmates of different races.

Analysis: Greatest Impact on Civil Rights

  • Analytical Task: To determine which entity had the most significant impact on civil rights: the Congress/President, the People, or the Courts.
    • Congress/President: Passed the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts and the 1965 Voting Rights Act; utilized the National Guard and Federal Marshals (e.g., Little Rock, Freedom Riders, Selma).
    • The People: Engaged in demonstrations, sit-ins, freedom rides, marches, and voter registration drives, putting pressure on elected representatives.
    • The Courts: Issued landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board, Heart of Atlanta Motel, and Loving v. Virginia, effectively dismantling the legal framework of segregation.