2/22 Notes PUBP 4833
Popular in 14th Amendment Law
Popular in Public Health
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Brandon Liu on Friday February 26, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PUBP 4833 at Georgia Institute of Technology - Main Campus taught by Judge Batten in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 11 views. For similar materials see 14th Amendment Law in Public Health at Georgia Institute of Technology - Main Campus.
Reviews for 2/22 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/26/16
2.16.16 Brown v. Board of Education o Five cases brought into one o Argued twice, first during the 1952-1953 term and then reargued the following year Justice William, original decision would have affirmed Plessy v. Ferguson 5-4 Argued for the second time on October 13, 1953 Justice Warren, new to the court, persuaded all the Justices to join in a unanimous decision holding separate but equal impermissible in education o Looked at the effect of segregation on public education o “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?” o “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City v. Dawson o No opinion o Declared segregation in use of public beaches and bathhouses unconstitutional Holmes v. City of Atlanta o Unconstitutional to segregate municipal golf courses Gayle v. Browder o Unconstitutional to segregate municipal bus system Johnson v. Virginia o Unconstitutional to segregate court seating Turner v. City of Memphis o Unconstitutional to segregate public restaurants Criticism as to why the court offered no opinion in these cases Johnson v. California o Strict scrutiny applied for racial classifications o Prison case Facially Neutral and Requirements for Proof of a Discriminatory Purpose Supreme Court has held that there must be proof of a discriminatory purpose in order for such laws to be treated as racial or national origin classifications Washington v. Davis o Police test case o Discriminatory impact is insufficient evidence o If impact was enough, any law/act that had a disproportionate impact on race would be thrown out o Purpose of the equal protection clause “is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race.” Mobile v. Bolden o Held that the election system will not be subjected to strict scrutiny unless there is proof of a discriminatory purpose McCleskey v. Kemp o Death penalty case o “must prove decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose” o Hard to prove the prosecutor or jury are biased Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, discriminatory impact is sufficient, but not under the Constitution Should Discriminatory Purpose be required? Yes, equal protection clause is concerned with stopping discriminatory acts by the government, not in bringing about equal results Laws that have the impact of benefiting minorities would be struck down Racism is often unconscious therefore making discriminatory purpose hard to pinpoint No, equal protection should be concerned with the results of government actions not just their underlying motivations “but to guarantee a full measure of human dignity for all...” Discriminatory Effect also required? Palmer v. Thompson o Pool case o Discriminatory purpose alone is insufficient to prove that a facially neutral law constitutes a race or national origin classification United States v. Armstrong o Important because of its express declaration that an equal protection challenge to a facially race neutral law requires showing both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory effect How is Discriminatory Impact Proven? Government has to have desired to discriminate Not enough that the government took action knowing its discriminatory outcome Court rejects tort definition of intent, acting with knowledge of foreseeable consequences, and uses the criminal law definition, desire to cause those results Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development o 3 ways discriminatory impact can be proven Impact of law may be so clearly discriminatory to allow no other explanation than it was adopted for impermissible purposes Statistical data History surrounding action Burden shift Burden shifts when discriminatory purpose found If law is facially neutral, government has the opportunity to demonstrate it would have taken the same action regardless of race or national origin Discriminatory Use of Peremptory Challenges Swain v. Alabama o Supreme Court held that racial discrimination by a prosecutor could be proved only by showing a pattern of discriminatory peremptory challenges over a series of cases Must prove defendant is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the jury those of his race o Johnson v. California Burden then moves to prosecutor to provide a race neutral explanation for the challenges o Purkett v. Elm Explanation does not have to be persuasive or even plausible until the third step Trial court must decide whether the race neutral explanation is persuasive or whether the defendant has established purposeful discrimination Unresolved as to whether or not religion applies Class Notes At law-actions or lawsuits, regular nothing too different, suing for theft, suing for trespassing etc. o Money judgement awarded In equity-money isn’t compensable, in fairness o Court will issue an injunction, court order to force somebody to do or not do something or risk jail time Griffin case declared it illegal for a school to close rather than desegregate Green case struck down a law that allowed students to choose what school in their district they went to Prima facie-Latin phrase meaning on its face, word used to describe burden of proof being met and shifting
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'