Exam 4 - 10 - Restrictive Covenant is legal but court...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Govt. 5/4/10 Civil Rights Lecture Definition and Beginnings of Civil Rights o Right to be treated equally by the law o Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause (Blacks and Whites can’t be treated differently by the state) o Evolution of Legal Meaning The Legal Strategy in Civil Rights Conflict over civil rights after the civil war o Reconstruction Early Court interpretation of Civil Rights o Civil Rights Cases (1883) State Action doctrine (only apply to state government, not to individual people) o Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Segregated Railcars Rail company that had separate cars for blacks and whites Supreme Court ruled that 14 th amendment ruled for equal protection, but since both blacks and whites were given same thing, no law was broken “Separate but Equal” o NAACP and the “Legal Strategy”- -go through federal courts and challenge things to be unconstitutional Smith v. Allwright (1944) Eliminated the white primary Shelly v. Kramer (1948) Black family sued for buying a house
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Restrictive Covenant is legal but court cannot enforce the covenant Sweat v. Painter (1950) Black student was denied admission to UT Law school Evolution of the Equal Protection Interpretation Brown v. Board of Education o Suspect classification o Went to school that was whites only in a diverse neighborhood o Denied by school o Separate by Equal is unconstitutional Supreme Court Decision after Brown o De facto vs. de jure (by law) segregation Miliken v. Bradely (1974) Doesnt prohibit the idea that there will be segregation based on individual choice Segregation by law is unconstitutional Affirmative Action o Ca v. Bakke (1978) o Hopwood v. Texas (1996) o Univ of Michigan Aff Action Cases Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Womens rights o Equal Rights Amendment o Court Rulings on gender Intermediate or heightened scrutiny Craig v. Boren (1976) Arizona Immigration Law...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/18/2010 for the course GOV 310L taught by Professor Kieth during the Spring '07 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 3

Exam 4 - 10 - Restrictive Covenant is legal but court...

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