Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (W|L)
- In 1896, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Justice Henry Brown of Michigan delivered the majority opinion, which
sustained the constitutionality of Louisiana's Jim Crow law. In part, he
said: "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiffs argument
to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two
races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be
so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because
the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument
also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation, and
that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of
the two races. If the civil and political rights of both races be
equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If
one race be inferior to the other socially, they cannot put them upon
the same plane."
Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (W|L)
- On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the
unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public
schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore
unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate
but equal" precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly 60 years earlier
in Plessy v. Ferguson and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil
rights movement during the decade of the 1950s. Arguments were to be
heard during the next term to determine just how the ruling would be
imposed. Just over one year later, on May 31, 1955, Warren read the
Court's unanimous decision, now referred to as Brown II, instructing the
states to begin desegregation plans "with all deliberate speed."
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (W|L)
- Proceeding on motion to vacate sentences for violating state ban on
interracial marriages. The Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia,
denied motion, and writ of error was granted. The Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals, 206 Va. 924, 147 S.E.2d 78, affirmed the convictions, and
probable jurisdiction was noted. The United States Supreme Court, Mr.
Chief Justice Warren, held that miscegenation statutes adopted by
Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on basis of racial
classification violate equal protection and due process clauses of
Fourteenth Amendment.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S.
265 (1978) (W|L)
- White male whose application to state medical school was rejected
brought action challenging legality of the school's special admissions
program under which 16 of the 100 positions in the class were reserved
for "disadvantaged" minority students. School cross-claimed for
declaratory judgment that its program was legal. The trial court
declared the program illegal but refused to order the school to admit
the applicant. The California Supreme Court, 18 Cal.3d 34, 132 Cal.Rptr.
680, 553 P.2d 1152, affirmed the finding that the program was illegal
and ordered the student admitted and the school sought certiorari. The
Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Powell, held that: (1) the special admissions
program was illegal, but (2) race may be one of a number of factors
considered by school in passing on applications, and (3) since the
school could not show that the white applicant would not have been
admitted even in the absence of the special admissions program, the
applicant was entitled to be admitted.
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (W|L)
- Court ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were
slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that the
United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal
territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court,
and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away
from their owners without due process.
Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (W|L)
- American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of
basic constitutional rights; first application of the strict scrutiny
test.