Civil Rights Court Cases

In 1890 the state of Louisiana passed Act 111 –also known as the Louisiana 1890 Separate Car Act, a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) FACTS:

Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment? ISSUE:

May 18, 1896: A 7 to 1 decision found the state law to be within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate- but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. DECISION:

In 1945 Gonzalo and Felícitas Méndez, California farmers, sent their children off to the local school, only to be told that the youngsters would have to attend a separate facility reserved for Mexican Americans. In response the Méndezes and other parents from nearby school districts went to federal court to challenge the segregation. They did not claim racial discrimination, since Mexicans were legally considered white, but rather discrimination based on ancestry and supposed “language deficiency” that denied their children their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. FACTS: Mendez v. Westminster (1947)

ISSUE: Does the segregation of Mexican-American public school children in the absence of a state law mandating their segregation violate California law as well as the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

State Court: Judge Paul McCormick of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Central Division ruled first that the segregation violated California’s own laws, A paramount requisite in the American system of public education is social equality. It must be open to all children by unified school association regardless of lineage.” DECISION:

US Court of Appeals: In April 1947, the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a unanimous decision. While the Court of Appeals upheld Judge McCormick’s judgment, it did so only on the basis that the segregation violated California law. The Court’s opinion noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s segregation decisions were not controlling in this case since there was no state law mandating segregation of Mexican-American children.

The Mendez case—which originated with LULAC (League of United Latin American citizens) but benefited from the participation of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)—also symbolized the important crossover between different ethnic and racial groups who came together to argue in favor of desegregation. From a legal perspective, Mendez v. Westminster was the first case to hold that school segregation itself is unconstitutional and violates the 14 th Amendment. Prior to the Mendez decision, some courts, in cases mainly filed by the NAACP, held that segregated schools attended by African American children violated the 14 th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because they were inferior in resources and quality, not because they were segregated.

In 1998, the Santa Ana Unified School District named a new school for her parents, Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez Fundamental Intermediate School. In 2011 Sylvia Mendez was awarded The Presidential Medal of Freedom presented by President Barack Obama. In 2007, the U.S. Postal Service unveiled a stamp commemorating the case

4t4ww 20cases/mendez-v-westminster.html

Delgado v Bastrop ISD (1948) FACTS: In Texas in the 1940s, separate public schools for some Mexican American students were maintained in 122 school districts in 59 Texas counties. The outcome of the Mendez case in California prompted Mexican American civil rights activists in Texas to prepare the first school segregation case in Texas. In 1948, with the support of LULAC, Minerva Delgado and 20 other parents of Mexican American children filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas challenging the segregation of their children in five Texas public school districts. The attorneys argued that the school districts had “prohibited, barred, and excluded” Mexican American children from attending public school with “other white school children” in violation of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

Does a public school district that maintains separate schools for Anglo and Mexican-American students in the absence of a state law requiring such violate the equal protection of the law clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment? ISSUE:

The court agreed that segregation of Mexican American students was not authorized by Texas law and violated the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An injunction was issued against the state and the school districts forbidding further segregation of students of “Mexican or Latin descent.” The decision left in place the legal segregation of African American students, which was specifically allowed under Texas law. Furthermore, the judge’s decision did allow school districts to provide separate first-grade classes for “language-deficient students who were identified by scientifically standardized tests.” The Delgado case did little to end segregation because it was still legal to separate Mexicans from Anglos for language deficiency DECISION:

In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. Theophilus Shickel Painter was the University of Texas' president at the time. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students. FACTS: Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Does the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allow a state to provide separate law schools for students of different races if those law schools are "substantially equal"? ISSUE:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. The Court argued that the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The Court also found that the mere separation from the majority of law students harmed students' abilities to compete in the legal arena. DECISION:

Brown v Board of Education ( 1954) FACTS: Oliver L. Brown was a parent whose third grade daughter, Linda Brown, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to her segregated black school which was one mile away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was only seven blocks from her house. Before filing their case, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of They were all denied enrollment and told to go to the segregated schools. The Kansas case was between Oliver Brown and the twelve other parents and The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? ISSUE: African-American students on whose behalf the Brown v. Board of Education case was taken to the Supreme Court

On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court overturned previous rulings (Plessy v. Ferguson) by declaring that laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. The Warren Court’s unanimously (9-0) decided that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” They argued that the previous rulings had enstated inferior treatment for black Americans. DECISION:

Though the decision helped spur the civil rights movement and paved the way for integration, it was not welcomed overnight. In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block nine black students from entering Little Rock High School. In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace personally blocked a door at the University of Alabama to prevent two black students from enrolling. In both cases, the incidents resulted in interventions from the highest level — in Little Rock, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to integrate the school, while in Alabama, President John F. Kennedy sent in the National Guard to remove George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" Wallace from the university doorway.

Black and White A man named David Arkin wrote a song in 1956 called Black & White. This song was written just a year after the Civil Rights Movement began. The song was written as a celebration of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. Sammy Davis, Jr. first recorded “Black & White” in When Sammy Davis, Jr. recorded the song, the opening lyrics were: “Their robes were black, Their heads were white, The schoolhouse doors were closed so tight, Nine judges all set down their names, To end the years and years of shame.” – David Arkin The song was re-recorded in 1971 by a reggae band named Greyhound. Just a year later, Three Dog Night, a popular band of their era, picked up the song and recorded it on their 1972 album Seven Separate Fools. Black And White Band – Three Dog Night / words by David Arkin ©

Hernandez v. Texas (1954) FACTS: Pedro Hernandez, a Mexican agricultural worker, was convicted for the murder of Joe Espinosa. Hernandez's legal team set out to demonstrate that the jury could not be impartial unless members of non-Caucasian races were allowed on the jury-selecting committees; no Mexican American had been on a jury for more than 25 years in Jackson County, the Texas county in which the case was tried despite the fact that 14 percent of the county’s population were persons with Mexican or Latin American surnames and that 11 percent of the male population over 21 years of age had such names

Is the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violated when a state tries a person of a particular race or ancestry before a jury in which all persons of that race or ancestry have been excluded from serving ISSUE:

The Court decided that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, which agreed with the arguments of Hernandez’s attorneys and overturned his convictionMexican AmericansUnited States14th AmendmentU.S. Constitutionopinion DECISION:

From a small-town Texas murder emerged a landmark civil rights case. The little-known story of the Mexican American lawyers who took Hernandez v. Texas to the Supreme Court, challenging Jim Crow-style discrimination. perience/features/trailer/class-apart- trailer/

White v Regester (1973) FACTS : State legislatures change district boundaries to account for population shifts. Each district should have about the same number of voters. In 1970 the Texas legislature changed district boundaries and Dallas and Bexar counties became districts with several members. However Mexican Americans and African Americans would have no real chance of being elected.

1. Are the legislative districts for the Texas House of Representatives drawn by the Texas Legislative Redistricting Board unconstitutional because the districts vary too much in population size and thus violate the equal protection of the law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? 2. Are the multimember Texas House districts created for Dallas and Bexar counties discriminatory against racial or ethnic minorities in those counties and thus unconstitutional? ISSUE :

For the first question the US Supreme Court upheld a district court ruling that the legislature had to make these into smaller, one-member districts giving minorities a chance to elect their own candidates The Court’s decision relative to the second question was 9-0. Still speaking through Justice White, the Court thus unanimously concluded that the multi-member House districts for Dallas and Bexar counties were unconstitutional. DECISION:

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. Regents of U Cal v. Bakke ( 1978) FACTS:

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? ISSUE:

How the case progressed:

The Court held in a closely divided decision that race could be one of the factors considered in choosing a diverse student body in university admissions decisions. The Court also held, however, that the use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible; thus the Univ. of California, Davis, medical school had, by maintaining a 16% minority quota, discriminated against Allan Bakke, 1940–, a white applicant. (Upheld affirmative action but not the use of racial quotas)affirmative action Decision:

Edgewood ISD v Kirby (1984) FACTS: In May of 1984, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed a suit against commissioner of education William Kirby in U.S. District Court on behalf Edgewood Independent School District of San Antonio, Texas, challenging Texas’ public school finance system. Under the Texas system, the state appropriated funds to provide each child with a minimum education. Each local school district then enriched that basic education with funds derived from local property taxes. Since the value of taxable property and the number of school-aged children varied greatly among the state’s many school districts, significant inter-district disparities existed in available enrichment revenues, per-pupil expenditures, and tax rates. In short, better education for students in wealthier school districts and worse education for students in poorer districts and was thus a violation of the equal protection of the law of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court considered the following question: Does Texas’ present public school finance system that has resulted in great disparities among the state’s public school districts violate Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, which requires the state to support and maintain “an efficient system of public free schools”? ISSUE:

The Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s public school finance system was a violation of Article VII, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Because of the disparities in district property wealth, spending per student varies widely, ranging from $2,112 to $19,333. Children who live in poor districts and children who live in rich districts must be afforded a substantially equal opportunity to have access to educational funds. DECISION: