Supreme Court Cases on Race

Cummings v. Board of Education (1899), Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), and Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) were three Supreme Court cases that followed Plessy v. Ferguson and that led to the segregation of schools and the establishment of the separate but equal doctrine that Plessy v. Ferguson set in motion. In Cummings v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia county school board was perfectly within its rights to close a school for blacks but maintain the school for whites when the county had to make a decision about how to save on finances. In Berea College v. Kentucky (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky was perfectly within its rights to require segregation within the private college Berea. In Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), the Supreme Court ruled that Mississippi could discriminate based on race and enforce segregation against Asians in its schools. All three of these cases showed that the problem of racism was institutionalized via Supreme Court rulings in the wake of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (Chapter 5).

2
Five Supreme Court cases that show the evolution and direction of school desegregation after the passage of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are: 1) Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 2) North Carolina v. Swann (1971), 3) Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, Colorado (1973), 4) Bradlev v. School Board. 412 US. 9, and 5) Board of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 111S. Ct. 630 (1991). The first Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education saw the Supreme Court approving busing as a way to integrate schools in districts that had operated a dual system based on racial prejudice. The second, North Carolina v. Swann (1971), saw the Supreme Court asserted that state policies and statutes must allow for school authorities to implement desegregation policies. The third, Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, Colorado (1973), saw the Supreme Court began to ease off the gas pedal and did not really build on the earlier desegregation ruling but continued to acknowledge a difference between de facto and de jure segregation (Chapter 5). In the fourth and fifth case examples, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it was going to back off the issue: in Bradlev v. School Board. 412 US. 9, the Court was deadlocked and thus made no ruling; in Board of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 111S. Ct. 630 (1991), the Court said the federal courts did not need to continue to monitor desegregation policies among schools, suggesting that it was no longer an issue the courts were going to be concerned about. Thus, the Court started off strong, enforcing desegregation—but by the 1990s the Court was basically willing to step back and stop giving an opinion on the matter.
3
Five Supreme Court decisions that show the direction that affirmative action took after the Bakke decision of 1978 are: 1) Fullilove v. Klutznick [448 US. 448 (1980)], 2) Firefighters v. Stotts [467 Us. 561(1984)], 3) Johnson Transportation Agency [107 S. C1. 1442 (1987)], 4) Citv of Richmond. Virginia v. JA. Croson Co. (109 S. Ct. 706), and 5) Adarand Contractors v. Pena {l15 S. Ct. 2097 (J995J1. The first, Fullilove v. Klutznick, saw the Supreme Court upholding a law passed by Congress that required state and local governments applying for grants to show that at least 10% of contracts would be given to minorities. The second, Firefighters v. Stotts, saw the Court stepping back a bit by rejecting a federal court order barring Firefighters from laying off black workers because of white seniority. The third, Johnson Transportation Agency, saw the Court affirming that affirmative action applied to sex as well as race and that it was not wrong to promote a woman because she was a woman though her application scores were lower than other applicants who were male. Fourth, Citv of Richmond. Virginia v. JA. Croson Co., basically reversed the earlier Fullilove ruling and was seen as another step back by the Court away from advocating for affirmative action. Fifth, Adarand Contractors v. Pena, saw the Court backing even further away from affirmative action by applying the same ruling as in the fourth to federal programs and saying that there need not be a strict set-aside rule to ensure the 10% of contracts going to minorities.
4
Four cases that have determined the extent of African American voter empowerment based upon the conflict between single member districting and the racial composition of the districts are: 1) White v. Regester (1973), 2) Richmond v. Us. (1975), 3) Mobile v. Bolden (1980), and 4) Thornburg v. Gingles [1O6 S.Ct. 2752 (1986]. The first, White v. Regester, saw the Supreme Court ruling that Texas’s methods of member districting were racist and discriminatory in favor of whites. The second, Richmond v. Us, saw the Court ruling in the opposite direction however by approving a Virginia plan to annex a neighbor that would reduce its black population by 10%. The third, Mobile v. Bolden, saw the Court agreed that Alabama was probably discriminating against blacks with its at-large election scheme, but it nonetheless ruled that there was no proof of discrimination. The fourth, Thornburg v. Gingles, saw the Court ruling against vote dilution.
5
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was similar to the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 in that it guaranteed the rights of African-Americans as U.S. citizens and that they were to be protected by the Constitution in terms of having all the same rights as whites. That was the essence of the 1866 Act and the 1875 Act stipulated that African Americans were to be protected from discrimination in public places. However the 1875 Act did not last long as it was later struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the discrimination against African Americans in public places was deemed illegal once more. Thus, it took nearly a century for the U.S. to learn that Jim Crow laws were anti-American and went against the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 basically assured that no one could discriminate against another based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, or any other characteristic. While the earlier Acts had focused exclusively on African Americans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was more inclusive and barred discrimination against anyone (Chapter 7).
6
Populism was a coalition that focused on the needs of the common man. The common man felt isolated and neglected by the Democrats on one hand and by Republicans on the other hand. The Populist coalition wanted more rights for workers, more money in the system; they wanted the government to be more active in owning the transportation and communication so that the monopolists were not setting prices and “railroading” commoners. Basically, they wanted the problems of the plain man to be taken up by government.
The Progressive coalition was oriented more towards battling the social and moral problems of the day. The Progressives wanted more equal rights for everybody: they wanted women to be able to vote and they blacks to be treated fairly—i.e., no more Jim Crow. They wanted to stop imperialism abroad and they wanted to abolish liquor and make everyone sober and every city dry. They wanted to end prostitution and gambling and so on, but in most cases they simply added to the work that the criminal underworld started doing. Instead of these vices being operated out in the open, they went underground and an entire crime network was created. So people got to feel good and progressive on the surface—but the coalition ultimately failed to achieve many lasting objectives, which was why the Civil Rights Movement eventually took off.
The Labor Movements were another issue that progressives got behind: they wanted the labor force to be better protected: better working conditions, shorter working hours, the ability to unionize, better wages, and so on. Workers’ rights was a common theme in the early part of the century and the many different books like The Jungle helped bring attention to the problems that workers suffered in urban areas. So the Labor Movements helped to draw focus on these issues.
The Rainbow Coalition was formed by merging two coalitions—PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) and the National Rainbow Coalition. Their aim is similar to earlier progressive efforts to oppose social injustice, support, promote and advocate for civil rights, and to engage in political activism. This merger was achieved by Rev. Jesse Jackson and the coalition has led to both blacks and whites working together to promote social justice issues for the LGBTQ+ community as well as for those who are marginalized and oppressed.
Works Cited
Chapter 5. Digital file.
Chapter 7. Digital file.