Supreme Court Cases - Assignment Example

Question 2

The US Supreme Court in San Antonio v Rodriguez held that the school financing system, which was based on property taxes, did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. San Antonio Independent School District was the appellant while Rodriguez was the respondent. The respondent brought the action on behalf of students and parents living in poor school districts in Texas. The argument was that the state’s system of school funding, which was based on local property taxes denied equal protection to those living in poor districts (Sutton, 2008).

The state provided free education for children in primary and secondary schools. It also provided for a specific amount of funding, according to the number of children in a district. The rest of the expenses were covered by funds from local property taxes. Reliance on property taxes created a disparity between schools in districts that had a lot of property and those in districts that did not have a lot of property. The claim was that this type of funding denied children in poor school districts the right to equal education (Ballenger, 2014).

The issue was whether education is a fundamental right for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that there is no constitutional right to equal education and the school financing system that resulted in the unequal allocation of finances was not subject to strict scrutiny. Education was not a fundamental right and the funding system that created disparities did not violate the equal protection clause.

The respondent’s argument was based on the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, which prevents states from denying people the equal protection of the laws. This was established in Brown v Board of education. In this case, Brown was a representative of a class action suit that alleged the segregation of schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Black children were denied access to schools attended by white children under the laws that required the segregation of schools. The plaintiffs were several black children who sued the Board of education seeking admission to public schools based on non-segregation (Ballenger, 2014).

The issue was whether the separate but equal provision of education deprived black children the right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that segregation of schools was a violation of the equal protection of the laws. The court reasoned that separating children based on race create a feeling of inferiority with regard to the status of black children in the community. The segregation had a significant and detrimental effect on equal education and it deprived the lack children equal protection under the law. The separate educational facilities for black and white children were inherently different. This decision rejected the separate but equal principle, which provided that segregation did not violate the constitution if the facilities provided for each race was equal (Sutton, 2008).

The decision in Rodriquez that education is not a fundamental right has a profound effect. This is because if education were a fundamental right protected by the constitution the courts would be forced to examine a financing system that caused the inequality. The laws establishing the school financing system would receive strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the court would inquire whether the law is reasonably related to a legitimate purpose and whether the means provided by the law are necessary for the achievement of the state’s interest (Ballenger, 2014).

The decision in Rodrigues did not deviate from the rule established in Brown. The court agreed with Brown that education is important for both the individual and the society, but the importance of a service undertaken by the state does not determine whether it should be considered as a fundamental right under the equal protection clause. The court noted that it did not have the authority to create substantive constitutional rights in guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws. The question of whether education is a fundamental right can be established by looking at whether the right is implicitly or explicitly provided for in the constitution (Sutton, 2008).

Question 4

The Civil Rights Cases are five cases that were consolidated it a single ruling by the Supreme Court due to their similarity. The ruling declared the Civil Rights Act of 1895 as unconstitutional. It struck down a critical provision of the Act that prohibited racial discrimination in public places. The ruling legalized the notion of separate but equal by barring Congress from remedying racial segregation. Each of the cases involved a black person who had been denied entrance to a public area that was owned by a private individual. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 prohibited discrimination based on race (Brooks & Widner, 2010).

The arguments presented before the court were for and against allowing private racial segregation. The arguments to ban private racial segregation provided that the intention of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were to eliminate slavery from America, therefore, the Civil Rights Act was constitutional. Allowing racial discrimination would permit some elements of slavery to remain. The arguments to allow racial discrimination provided that the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited states from practicing racial discrimination and does not affect private citizens. The civil rights act is unconstitutional because it infringes on the rights of private citizens.

There were two issues in this case. The first was whether Congress had the power under the thirteenth amendment to regulate activities outside slavery. The second issue was whether Congress had the power under the fourteenth amendment to control private activities in order to ensure equal protection. The court held that the Civil rights Act was unconstitutional and stated that private businesses had the right to deny service to those they did not want to serve. The thirteenth amendment covers activities that involve slaves and provides that a person cannot own another. It does not cover discriminatory activities. The equal protection requirement under the Fourteenth amendment requires equality in the distribution of state affairs, but it does not cover private affairs (Brooks & Widner, 2010).

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v United States was a civil right case that held that Congress could use its authority to require businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodation places. The Heart of Atlanta motel refused to accommodate blacks and it was charged with violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The issue before the court was whether Congress exceeded its authority by depriving businesses such as the heart of Atlanta Motel the right to choose its customers (McClain, 2011).

The motel challenged the constitutionality of the provision that prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. It contended that Congress had exceeded its power in enacting the provisions in the Civil Rights Act that allowed regulation of prate businesses. They also claimed that the provision violated the Fifth Amendment because it deprived the motel the right to choose its customers and operate as it wishes.

The court held that Congress did not exceed its authority as the application of the provision allowing regulation of local businesses was limited to establishments that had a direct and substantial relation to the flow of commerce. The court concluded that places of public accommodation did not have the right to choose quests. The court noted that the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce includes the power to regulate local activities, which might have a harmful effect on commerce. Therefore, Congress acted within its authority in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (McClain, 2011).

The issues in the two cases are similar as they relate to whether Congress has the authority to regulate private activities. In the Civil Right Cases, the question was whether the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was constitutional, while the question in the Heart of Atlanta was whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was constitutional. Despite of the similarity of issues in these two cases, the decisions were completely different. The court in the Civil rights cases held that the Act was unconstitutional, while the Heart of Atlanta Court held that the law was constitutional. The latter decision was a deviation from the previous decision. The decision in Heart of Atlanta was significant as it marked the starting point for Congress to promote civil rights with its authority to regulate interstate commerce. This decision permitted the use of a powerful legal tool to enforce equal treatment (Hersch & Shinall, 2015).