Lecture 45 Discrimination IX

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. 1.
Advertisements

Constitutional Law Part 4: The Federal Judicial Power
How has the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment changed the Constitution?
American Government and Politics Today
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Chapter 13 Finance This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited.
State Action & Civil Rights Acts Class Slides 2/05/09.
INTRODUCTION TO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 2/07/08. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961) ISSUE: It is a violation of the equal protection clause of.
The Burger Court Membership, 1969 & 1986 Burger (1969) R-MN Black (1937) D-AL Douglas (1939) D-WA Harlan (1955) R-NY Brennan (1956) D-NJ.
I. Proliferation of Government Regulation. II. State Regulation A. State power 1. To regulate intrastate commerce 2. limited by the federal gov'ts power.
Chapter 5 Civil Rights Legal basis for civil rights Enforcing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment Critical Supreme Court ruling in the battle.
Constitutional Law Part 2: The Federal Legislative Power Lecture 8: Post-Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments)
Gender Discrimination
Due Process and Equal Protection
Section III: Legislation & Supreme Court Rulings in Support of ELLs
Legal Background of Civil Rights. Have your “Legal Background of the Civil Rights Movement” on your desk – we will go over it today.
Chapter 13 Finance School Funding and Taxes The power of taxation for education resides with the state limited only by federal and state constitution.
PA101 Unit 8. Let’s review a few issues: Strength Quest Where do our laws come from?
Public Interest Law & Policy Class 27 Ronald W. Staudt December 4, 2008.
Resolved: All constitutional rights should extend to every person in the US regardless of their citizenship status.
Ana Grajeda Marisol Quiroz Lizet Salazar
Finance in Education Chapter 9. Court Decision Guidelines Guidelines that have emerged from state and federal court decisions: 1. Financing education.
Equal Protection of the Laws Amendment – –No state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” Amendment – applies.
Part 6: Equal Protection Lecture 2: Rational Basis Test
Civil Rights Unit 7: The Judicial Branch, Civil Liberties, and Civil Rights.
American Government and Politics Today
Constitutional Law II Alienage Discrimination. Fall 2006Con Law II2 Types of Alienage Discrimination National Origin Lawfully admitted aliens Undocumented.
Constitutional Law II Spring 2005Con Law II1 Right to Travel.
Constitutional Law II Right to Travel. Fall 2006Con Law II2 Various Meaning of Right to Travel Right to enter and leave a State Right to equal treatment.
Equal Protection of the Law: Basic Principles & Analytical Model LEARNING THE LAW © 2015 Brendan Beery & Daniel Ray. All rights reserved.
American Government and Politics Today Chapter 15 The Courts.
Argued: December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided: January 22, 1973.
Legal Issues in School Finance Content from Odden and Picus, School Finance a Policy Perspective.
Analyzing Constitutional law Issues -There must be government action that violates the Constitution. -Private citizens may commit crimes or torts but.
What is Citizenship??. What does citizenship mean?
Chapter 2 Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
Immigrant Rights: Fact or Fiction
Implied Powers of the National Government
Unit 7: The Judicial Branch, Civil Liberties, and Civil Rights
Immigration Reform Amanda Williams Madelynn Montoya Andrew Davis
Lesson 19: How Has the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Changed the Constitution?
Reminders! First Project Due: Oct 20
Immigration and the Constitution – Part Two
Chapter 4 Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Chapter 4: The Federal System
Lecture 42 Discrimination VI
Lecture 43 Discrimination VII
Lecture 36 Unit IV Introduction
Bellringer #12 Should conflicts between rights (freedom of speech) limitations (laws) by the national or state government on individuals be settled by.
Lecture 48 Voting and Representation II
Lecture 41 Discrimination V
Lecture 50 Voting and Representation IV
The Right to Privacy IV Abortion Rights III
Lecture 44 Discrimination VIII
Lecture 51 Voting and Representation V
Right to Privacy VII Right to Die, Drug Testing, New Issues
Lecture 46 Discrimination X
Supreme Court – Scrutiny Tests
COMMUNITY SERVICE REMINDER
Part 2: Reconstruction to the Burger Court
Speech Clauses III (Tests and Guidelines; Symbolic Speech)
Part 4: Sovereign Immunity and New Judicial Federalism
Lecture 33 The Commerce Power
Lecture 41 The Contract Clause
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Lecture 36 The Power to Tax and Spend
Lecture 40 Discrimination IV
Federalism.
Dormant Commerce Clause Is there state action (not Federal) action?
Lecture 8 The Legislature
Presentation transcript:

Lecture 45 Discrimination IX Discrimination on Economic Status and Immigration Status

This Lecture Pages 694-706 Discrimination based on Economic Status and Immigration Status San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Economic Status Discrimination The country once had debtors prisons However, attitudes started to change The War on Poverty more programs to assist the poor Providing counsel to the indigent But what standard to apply? Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) Court strikes down one year state residency requirement for welfare benefits They seems to apply strict scrutiny but it also implied the right to interstate travel too This was a fundamental right, but what if a fundamental right not implicated?

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) Background Challenge to the Texas educational funding system It is based on property taxes in the district, so poor areas get less money The state and federal government would add small additional funding The disparity was very great between districts, often correlated with race A lower court said this was discrimination based on economic status They said children were a suspect class and education was a fundamental right

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- II Arguments For San Antonio School District and the State of Texas Spending per pupil is not a proper measure to use Education is not a fundamental right as recognized by the Constitution or the Court Economic status is not a suspect class The school funding system is rational in it lets local districts to use more of their resources For Rodriguez and other plaintiffs The state draws school district boundaries Education is very important and is a fundamental right The poor are a suspect class The proper standard is strict scrutiny

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- III Powell, J. for a 5-4 Court He rules that the poor are not a suspect class and there is no strict scrutiny The right to be educated is not found in the Constitution either implicitly or explicitly No Equal Protection requirement for equal per pupil spending The poor are not a suspect class This law does not discriminate against all poor people in Texas The proper standard is therefore rational basis Court finds this formula is rationally related to an legitimate state objective

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- IV Marshall, J. dissenting Dissents also by Brennan and White, JJ. He thinks everyone has the right to an equal start in life And this means education Therefore should be subject to strict scrutiny There is discriminatory treatment from this policy Note: Many have challenged state funding formulas successfully under state constitutional provisions, but not at the federal level after this case

Discrimination based on Alienage Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Resident aliens entitled to Equal Protection Graham v. Richardson (1971) Non-citizens are a suspect class Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977) Resident aliens cannot be denied state higher education financial aid Foley v. Connelie (1978) Not a violation to have a policy to deny aliens a job in law enforcement

Plyler v. Doe (1982) Background Texas passes a law to deny education to the children of those not in the country legally by denying the districts state funds for them They can also deny enrollment to undocumented children Lawsuit filed in Tyler against school that denied children admission who could not prove their citizenship status

Plyler v. Doe- II Arguments For Texas For Doe Education is not a fundamental right, thus law subject to rational basis This is a resource issue for Texas taxpayers Texas has an interest in discouraging illegal immigration For Doe Equal Protection Clause applies to undocumented children San Antonio involved discriminatory education resources, this a complete denial This is not a good means to stop illegal immigration

Plyler v. Doe- III Brennan, J. for a 5-4 Court Powell, J. joins in this opinion unlike San Antonio Marshall concurs to echo his dissent in San Antonio Undocumented children are people “in any ordinary sense of the term” Texas justification for the law is insufficient They see the opposite effect This was directed against children in a discriminatory manner This is a total denial of education This law furthers no substantial state interest This seems to be its own intermediate scrutiny standard But for undocumented immigrants, this standard applies only to children

Plyler v. Doe- IV Burger, C.J. joined by White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ. dissenting They would leave this to the political process Court is seeking to do Congress job here They don’t agree with the policy per se but think it should be left to the legislatures

Next Lecture Pages 706-716 State Action Requirement Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961) Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)