1. Chapter Six Civil Rights

2. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 2 What are civil rights? Protect certain groups against discrimination Claims are raised when a group is denied access to facilities, opportunities, or services available to other groups The issue is whether differences in treatment are reasonable

3. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 3 Separate-But-Equal NAACP strategy went through a series of stages: –Step 1: obvious inequalities, addressed in 1938–1948 cases –Step 2: deciding that separation creates inequality in less obvious cases –Step 3: declaring that separation is inherently unequal - Brown v. Board of Education

4. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 4 Brown v. Board of Education Unanimous Supreme Court opinion overturned Plessy Segregation is detrimental; creates sense of inferiority in African American students The Court relied on social science, because the Fourteenth Amendment was not necessarily intended to abolish segregated schools, and the Court sought a unanimous opinion

5. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 5 Desegregation v. Integration Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971): –remedies may include racial quotas, redrawn district lines, and court-ordered busing Inter-city busing could be authorized only if both the city and the suburbs had practiced segregation Busing remains controversial

6. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 6 The Campaign for Civil Rights Sit-ins and freedom rides, voter registration efforts Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks— Montgomery bus boycott From nonviolent civil disobedience to the “long, hot summers” of racial violence (1964–1968)

7. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 7 Figure 6.2: Growing Support Among Southern Democrats in Congress for Civil Rights Bills Congressional Quarterly, Congress and the Nation, vols. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8.

8. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 8 Table 6.1: Increase in Number of Black Elected Officials

9. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 9 Gender-Based Discrimination Reasonableness standard versus strict scrutiny Court chooses a blend—more than reasonable but not as much as strict scrutiny Some gender-based differences are allowed by courts

10. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 10 Sexual Harassment Quid pro quo: –sexual favors are required as a condition for holding a job or for promotion; employers are strictly liable Hostile environment: –creating a setting in which harassment impairs a person’s ability to work; employers are liable if they were negligent

11. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 11 Privacy and Sex Regulating sexual matters is traditionally a state function, under the exercise of the police powers In 1965, Supreme Court held that states could not prevent the sale of contraceptives, because that violated the zone of privacy

12. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 12 Abortion Roe v. Wade: struck down a Texas ban on abortion (and all similar state laws) Woman’s freedom to choose is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

13. Abortion Roe v. Wade 410 u.s. 113 (1973) Doe v. Bolton 410 u.s. 179 (1973) Bigelow v. Virginia 421 u.s. 809 (1975) Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth 428 u.s. 52 (1976) Beal v. Doe 432 u.s. 438 (1977) Maher v. Roe 432 u.s. 464 (1977) Poelker v. Doe 432 u.s. 519 (1977) Harris v. McRae 448 u.s. 297 (1980) Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. 462 u.s. 416 (1983) Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists 476 u.s. 747 (1986) Frisby v. Schultz 487 u.s. 474 (1988) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 u.s. 490 (1989) Hodgson v. Minnesota 497 u.s. 417 (1990) Rust v. Sullivan 500 u.s. 173 (1991) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 505 u.s. 833 (1992) Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 13

14. Abortion Webster (1989): The Court upheld some restrictions on abortions In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number of restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law codified the following restrictions: public employees and public facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower courts struck down the restrictions. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 14

15. Abortion The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. Casey decision (1992) does not overturn Roe but permits more restrictions: 24-hour wait, parental consent, pamphlets about alternatives Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 15

16. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 16 Affirmative Action Affirmative action: –preferential hiring and admission practices to remedy discrimination Bakke (1978): numerical minority quotas are not permissible, but race can be considered

17. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 17 Affirmative Action Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995) any racial classification is subject to strict scrutiny Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) overturned a University of Michigan admissions policy that gave “bonus points” to Black, Hispanic and Native American applicants to the undergraduate program Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld a University of Michigan Law School admissions policy that used race as a “plus factor” but not as part of a numerical quota

18. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 18 Homosexuals and the Constitution Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): Georgia was allowed to ban homosexual sexual activity Romer v. Evans (1996): Colorado voters had adopted state constitutional amendment making it illegal to protect persons based on gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation; the Court overturns it Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000): A private organization may ban gays from its membership. Lawrence v. Texas (2003): The Court overturned a Texas law banning sexual conduct between persons of the same sex

19. Homosexuals and the Constitution United States v. Windsor (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In a 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that DOMA violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that the law interferes with the states' rights to define marriage. It was the first case ever on the issue of gay marriage for the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. voted against striking it down as did Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. However, conservative-leaning Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with his liberal colleagues to overturn DOMA. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents in California did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling that overturned the state's ban, known as Proposition 8. The ruling will remove legal battles for same-sex couples wishing to marry in California. However, the ruling did not directly affect other states. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 19

20. Homosexuals and the Constitution Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Copyright © Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.6 | 20