HiSET Social Studies: Civil Rights and Supreme Court Cases

The Civil Rights Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was a statue passed following the Civil War.  It was comprised of the 1870 Force Act and the 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act.  It was passed primarily with the intention of protecting southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan.  Since it was passed in 1871, the statute has only undergone small changes.  It has however, been interpreted widely by the courts.  In 1882 some parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were found unconstitutional, but the Force Act and the Klan Act continued to be applied in civil rights cases in subsequent years.

Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson was an 1896 Supreme Court case.  The case resulted in the decision that de jure racial segregation in public facilities was legal in the United States, and permitted states to restrict blacks from using public facilities.  The case originated when, in 1890, a black man named Homer Plessy decided to challenge a Louisiana law that segregated blacks and whites on trains by sitting in the white section of a train.  Plessy was convicted of breaking the law in a Louisiana court, and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court upheld the Louisiana decision.  The case established the legality of the doctrine of separate but equal, thereby allowing racial segregation.  The decision was later overturned by Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka.

The Fair Employment Act
The Fair Employment Act was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941.  The purpose of the act was to ban racial discrimination in industries related to national defense and represented the very first federal law to ban discrimination in employment.  The Fair Employment Act mandated that all federal government agencies and departments concerned with national defense, as well as private defense contractors, guaranteed that professional training would be conducted without discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin.  The Fair Employment Act was followed by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned discrimination by private employers, and by Executive Order 11246 in 1965, which concerned federal

Brown v. Board of Education
Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1954.  The case made it illegal for racial segregation to exist within public education facilities.  This decision was based on the finding that separate but equal public educational facilities would not provide black and white students with the same standard of facilities.  The case originated in 1951, when a lawsuit was filed by Topeka parents, who were recruited by the NAACP, against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in a U.S. District Court.  The parents, one of whom was named Oliver Brown, wanted the Topeka Board of Education to eliminate racial segregation.  The District Court agreed that segregation had negative effects, but did not force the schools to desegregate because it found that black and white school facilities in the District were generally equal in standards.  The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the finding was that separate educational facilities are unequal.

Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe was a 1954 Supreme Court case.  Like Brown v. Board of Education, this case addressed issues concerning segregation in public schools.  The case originated in 1949, when parents from Anacostia, an area in Washington, DC, petitioned the Board of Education of the District of Columbia to allow all races to attend a new school.  The request was denied.  A lawsuit was brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a student named Bolling and other students to admit them to the all-white school.  The case was dismissed by the District Court and taken to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that the school had to be desegregated based on the Fifth Amendment.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to protect the right of both black men and of women.  It served as part of the foundation for the women's right movement.  The act was a catalyst for change in the United States, as it made it illegal to engage in acts of discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment.  The Civil Rights Act prohibited unequal voter registration, prohibited discrimination in all public facilities involved in interstate commerce, supported desegregating public schools, insured equal protection for blacks in federally funded programs, and banned employment discrimination.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed in 1978 as an amendment to the sex discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act stipulated that people cannot be discriminated against due to pregnancy, childbirth, or medical issues related to pregnancy or childbirth.  If a person becomes pregnant, gives birth, or has related medical conditions they must receive treatment that is equivalent to that received by other employees and also receive equal benefits as other employees.  The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993 to advance protections under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Civil Rights Act of 1968
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The act made it illegal to discriminate against individuals during the sale, rental, or financing of housing. 
Therefore, the act is also referred to as the Fair Housing Act of 1968. 
The act made it illegal to refuse to sell or rent housing based on race, color, religion, or national origin.  It also made it illegal to advertise housing for sale or rent and to specify a preference to rent or sell the property to an individual of a particular race, color, religion, or national origin.  In addition, the act ensured protection for civil rights workers.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against people who are forty years old or greater in age.  The act establishes standards for employer provided pensions and benefits and mandates that information regarding the needs of older workers be made publicly available.  In addition to generally banning age discrimination, the ADEA specifies particular actions that are illegal. 
Employers may not specify that individuals of a certain age are preferred or are conversely restricted from applying to job ads.  Age limits are only permitted to be mentioned in job ads if age has been shown to be a bona fide occupational qualification.  The act stipulates that it is illegal to discriminate against age through apprenticeship programs, and that it is illegal to restrict benefits to older employees.  However, employers are permitted to lower the benefits provided to older employees based on age if the expense of providing fewer or lesser benefits is equivalent to the expense of providing benefits to younger employees.

Loving v. Virginia
Loving versus Virginia was a 1967 Supreme Court case.  The decision that resulted from the case ruled that a particular law in Virginia known as the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was unconstitutional.  The Virginia law had prohibited interracial marriage, and therefore with the Supreme Court ruling put an end to race-based restrictions on marriage. 
The case originated when Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, an interracial Virginia couple that was married in Washington, D.C. due to a Virginia state law prohibiting interracial marriage returned to Virginia and received charges of violating the interracial marriage ban.  After pleading guilty, the couple was forced to move to D.C. to avoid a jail sentence, where they brought their case to the Supreme Court on the premise that their Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated.  The Supreme Court found that the Virginia law was unconstitutional and overturned the conviction that the couple had been charged with.

Jones v. Mayer
Jones versus Mayer was a 1968 Supreme Court case.  In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to regulate the sale of private property for the purpose of preventing racial discrimination.  This United States Supreme Court ruling was based on a legal statue that stipulates that it is illegal in the United States to commit acts of racial discrimination, both privately and publicly, when selling or renting property.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Congressional power to uphold the statute extends from the power of Congress to uphold the Thirteenth Amendment.

Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a controversial 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case.  The case originated in 1970 in Texas, which had an anti-abortion law. 
The plaintiff was an unmarried pregnant woman who was assigned the name "Jane Roe' to protect her identity.  Texas anti-abortion law characterized the acts of having or attempting to perform an abortion as crimes, with the exception of cases in which an abortion could save the life of a mother. The lawsuit argued that the Texas law was unconstitutionally vague and was not consistent with the rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. While the Texas court ruled in favor of Roe, it did not rule that Texas had to discontinue the enforcement of its anti-abortion law. Roe appealed to the Supreme Court in 1971, and the court's decision in 1973 struck down Texas's abortion laws. The case overturned most state laws prohibiting abortion.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Regents of the University of California versus Bakke was a 1978 Supreme Court case that banned quota systems in the college admissions process but ruled that programs providing advantages to minorities are constitutionally sound.  The case originated when Allan Bakke, a white male who was a strong student, applied to the University of California at Davis Medical School and was rejected.  The school had a program that reserved admissions spots for minority applicants; the program had grown along with the overall size of the school since its opening in 1968.  Bakke complained to the school but was still not admitted and he finally brought his case before the Superior Court of California.  The California court ruled in favor of Bakke, who claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his race, and the school appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one factor by discriminatory boards such as college admissions boards, however quotas were ruled to be discriminatory.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA was passed by Congress in 1990.  This act outlines the rights of individuals with disabilities in society in all ways besides education.  It states that they should receive nondiscriminatory treatment in jobs, access to businesses and other stores, and other services.  Due to this law, all businesses must be wheelchair accessible, having a ramp that fits the standards of the law, and making sure that all doors are wide enough and that bathrooms can be maneuvered by someone in a wheelchair.  If these rules are not followed, businesses can be subject to large fines until these modifications have been complied with.  The ADA also ensures fair treatment when applying for jobs to make sure that there is no unfair discrimination for any person with a disability who is applying to the job.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a statute.  It was passed as a result of a number of Supreme Court decisions that restricted the rights of individuals who had sued their employers on the basis of discrimination.  The passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed that modifications were made to the rights granted under federal laws to individuals in cases involving employment discrimination.  Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 granted the right to a trial by jury to individuals involved in cases of employment discrimination and it also addressed for the first time the potential for emotional distress damages and limited the amount awarded by a jury in such cases.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was a 1992 Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania abortion laws.  The case was brought before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by abortion clinics and physicians to challenge four clauses of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.  The District Court ruled that all of the clauses of the Pennsylvania act were unconstitutional.  The case was then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled to uphold all of the clauses except for one requiring notification of a husband prior to abortion.  The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled to uphold constitutional right to have an abortion, thereby upholding Roe v. Wade.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña
Adarand Constructors, Inc. versus Peña was a 1995 United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that any racial classifications that are instituted by representatives of federal, state, or local governments have to be reviewed and analyzed by a court.  The court that reviews such racial classifications must abide by a policy of strict scrutiny.  Strict scrutiny represents the highest standard of Supreme Court review.  Racial classifications are deemed constitutional solely under circumstances in which they are being used as specific measures to advance critical and important governmental interests.  The ruling of the Supreme Court in this case requiring strict scrutiny as a standard of review for racial classifications overturned the case of Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, in which the Supreme Court established a two-level method of reviewing and analyzing racial classifications.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a proposed United States federal law that has not yet been passed. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would ban employers from discriminating against their employees based on their sexual orientation.  A number of states have already passed laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, including California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  As it is currently proposed, the federal law would not protect transgender or intersexual individuals from

Public Policy
Public policy is the study of how the various levels of government formulate and implement policies.  Public policy also refers to the set of policies that a government adopts and implements, including laws, plans, actions, and behaviors, for the purpose of governing society.  Public policy is developed and adapted through the process of policy analysis. 
Public policy analysis is the systematic evaluation of alternative means of reaching social goals. 

Public policy is divided into various policy areas, including domestic policy, foreign policy, healthcare policy, education policy, criminal policy, national defense policy, and energy policy.

Grutter v. Bollinger
Grutter versus Bollinger was a 2003 Supreme Court case that upheld an affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law
School admissions process.  The case originated in 1996 when Barbara Grutter, a white in-state resident with a strong academic record applied to the law school and was denied admission.  In 1997 she filed a lawsuit claiming that her rejection was based on racial discrimination and violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The case was heard in 2001 in a U.S. District Court, which ruled that the university's admissions policies were unconstitutional.  In 2002 the case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court's decision.  The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, which ruled that the school's affirmative action policy could remain in place, upholding the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke permitting race to be a factor in admissions but banning quotas.