All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment
Taylor vs. louisiana Billy Taylor was charged with rape and kidnapping and after he was convicted he appealed the louisiana supreme court due to them violating his 6th and 14th amendments by an impartial jury.
Taylor vs. louisiana He claimed that the louisiana supreme court violated his right to trial by an impartial jury under the 6th and 14th amendments. The court found that his 6th and 14th amendment rights were violated.
Taylor vs. louisiana Billy Jean Taylor clearly knew his rights and appealed as soon as he could which turned out great in his favor the appeal went straight to the supreme court and they stated he had his 6th and 14th amendment rights violated due to the non-impartial jury.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Facts • Allan Bakke applied for admissions at the University of California Medical School twice; both got rejected • School then reserved 16 places for each class, for “qualified minories”/ Bakke’s application exceeded those of minories. • Supreme Court excluded that the admission was on the basis of race
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Issue • Allan Bakke took the University of California of Medical school to court, because of it's unfair quota system. • This violated the Title Vi of the Civil Rights Act is 1964 and the 14th amendment Holding • The Supreme Court agreed finding that the quota system discriminated racial groups and holding that “ no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, without required of race.”
Argued April 28, 2015 / Decided June 26, 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Facts/What Happened: • Jim Obergefell fell in love with John Arthur in 1992. They travels the world for 2 decades and traveled up to Maryland to get married. Arthur gets diagnosed with ALS and shortly passed away. Obergefell was not legally allowed to be named his spouse on his death certificate in their home state of Ohio. • Richard Hodges, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, et al.
Obergefell v. Hodges • Jim organized groups of same-sex couples sued their states that had banned same-sex marriage. Ohio,Michigan,Kentucky, and Tennessee. • The couples argued that the states were violating their 14th amendment rights and even their Civil rights. (happened in Ohio)
Obergefell v. Hodges • Does the 14th amendment require a state license to recognize a married couple of the same sex? • Does the 14th amendment recognize that marriage license if it came from another state to theirs? Holding: The 14th A. requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize their marriage lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
Obergefell v. Hodges Reasoning:The Due Process of the 14th A. guarantees the right to marry who you want as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. Same manner meaning any type of couple needs a marriage license thats viewed legit in and out of their home state. • On June 26, 2015 same sex marriage became legal in all U.S States.
Goss V. Lopez Nine students, including a student named Dwight Lopez the defendant, were suspended for 10 days for destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment.The law required students' parents to be notified of the action within 24 hours to be given the reason, which they weren't.
Goss V. Lopez The Court held that a suspension was not a deprivation of property. It stated that suspending students had the potential of seriously harming their reputation and affecting their future employment and education. The Court also held that the state had no authority to deprive students of their property interest in educational benefits or their liberty interest in reputation, without due process of law.
Goss V. Lopez Lewis Powell wrote the dissent that argued that the Ohio statute had granted the right to education, not the right to education without discipline. He challenged the court's finding that the suspension was severe enough to bring the Due Process Clause into play.
Gitlow V. New York Matt Ramnarine
Conclusion Benjamin Gitlow knew that he did nothing against his constitutional right to the press, and he was still convicted. He appealed and went all the way to the state appellate court, and he still lost.
Case Info. In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled that the protection of Free Speech, under the First Amendment, also applied to State governments. Gitlow’s case ended up with him being arrested and convicted with criminal anarchy, which is a major offense in the state of New York. They believed that he began the rebellion to overthrow the government with his paper, which is the main reason why he was convicted.
Cont. Gitlow was arrested for criminal anarchy, while at an assembly. Gitlow was a writer for the “Revolutionary Age” which sparked a violent overthrow to the US government. Even though there was no violent action in the paper, Benjamin Gitlow was still convicted, which held in the State appellate court.
Plessy V. Ferguson Facts/what happened The case happened when a African American train passenger refused to sit in the train car designated for blacks After he refused to switch cars he was arrested at the conductors insistence He was then convicted for violating the 1890 law by a new orleans court
Plessy V. Ferguson After being convicted he petitioned the judge claiming the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment taking the case to the supreme court in louisiana
Plessy v. Ferguson THE RULING The first court he went to he was convicted and sentenced to pay a 25$ fine Plessy then appealed to the supreme court however the supreame court held up Ferguson's decision.
Plessy v. Ferguson Reasoning The reason for the ruling is the judge did not believe it was not equal treatment this. This along with other cases led to the belief of “separate but equal”. The decision in this case strethenged the seperate but equal doctrine and was used as an example in other cases
De jure and de facto segregation De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but that is not officially sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in accordance with law.
Civil rights acts of 1868 and of title IX The civil rights act of 1868 prohibits discrimination of sale, rental, or distribution of housing based on race, religion, national origin or sex Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding