Con Law--Moot Court I Essay(Segregation Cases)

Con Law--Moot Court I Essay(Segregation Cases) - Laura...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Laura Johnson Professor Chinnery American Constitutional Law 11 February 2007 Moot Court I Essay The issue of the segregation of races in public education systems has been controversial in the United States for decades. Throughout the years, numerous cases have been tried in the courts regarding this issue, and though the Supreme Court has ruled that laws upholding segregation in education are unconstitutional, segregation has not been completely wiped out. In fact, a few school districts in various locations across the country still have segregationist policies in effect. The public schools in the city of Syracuse, New York are no exception. Several interest groups, such as the NYCLU, challenged the segregation of the schools and brought their case before the court. The question raised by this case is as follows: Does the maintenance of the current school districting plan of Syracuse violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment? In reviewing the constitutionality of this case, the strict scrutiny standard should be used because it is not only the highest standard applied by the courts; it also subjects the issue to the most thorough analysis. In the past, the strict scrutiny standard has been used in cases dealing with the infringement of any of the fundamental rights listed in the Constitution, as well as those dealing with suspect classifications, such as race. Since this case is one which deals with race, it seems only fitting that the strict scrutiny standard be applied as the level of review to establish the constitutionality of the current Syracuse school districting plan. When examined under the scope of this high level of scrutiny, the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
single-race schools in the city of Syracuse cannot be deemed constitutional because the districting plan does not provide a narrowly tailored means to reach a compelling state interest. In fact, a compelling state interest does not exist because the single-race schools are merely preferred by some of the state’s citizens, including the mayor of Syracuse, as opposed to being necessary for the state, or city, to properly function. Maintaining the segregationist policies of the current school districting plan of Syracuse, whether enforced by law or not, is most definitely in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. The situation in Syracuse is similar to the one brought to the Court’s attention in
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

Con Law--Moot Court I Essay(Segregation Cases) - Laura...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online