Graded Assignment

Graded
Assignment

Name:

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

Date:

Practice: Civil Rights Cases

Your Assignment

Create a worksheet in your word processor to track the following information (don't worry about formatting; the information is what's important):
Date
Issue Before Court
Constitutional Amendment
Decision
Significance
Go to http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage and select Search cases at the top of the page.
Type in a case name from the list below. Once you've located the case, follow the link to the "Abstract" of the case. This will contain most of the information you'll
need to fill in the worksheet. Repeat this step for each case on the list below.
On your worksheet, provide the required information, in your own words.

What You Turn In

Your worksheet containing the required information for each case.

Please include your name, user name, and the date at the top of the file.

Hints and Tips

You may want to read all or part of the case opinions, both majority and dissenting, to get a better sense of the reasoning behind the Court's decisions.
Don't copy the exact words found in the Case Abstract on the "Oyez" Web site.

Civil Rights Cases Worksheet

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford
2. Plessy v. Ferguson

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

Page 1 of 8

Graded Assignment

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

3. Sweatt v. Painter
4. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
5. Loving v. Virginia
6. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
7. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
8. Grutter v. Bollinger
9. Gratz v. Bollinger

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

Page 2 of 8

Graded Assignment

Case:

Date

Issue Before Court

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

Constitutional
Amendment

Decision

Significance

Dred Scott v.
Sandford

March 6, 1857

Dred Scott, an enslaved African

American, attempted to sue for
his freedom

14th

The Court held that

African Americans,
whether enslaved or
free, could not be
American citizens and
therefore had no
standing to sue in
federal court

The decision proved

to be an indirect
catalyst for
the American Civil
War

Plessy v.
Ferguson

May 18, 1896

Is Louisiana's law mandating

racial segregation on its trains
an unconstitutional
infringement on both the
privileges and immunities and
the equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment?

14th

The Court uphold the

constitutionality of
state laws requiring
racial segregation in
public facilities under
the doctrine of
"separate but equal

"Separate but equal"

remained standard
doctrine in U.S. law
until its repudiation in
the 1954 Supreme
Court decision

Sweatt v.

June 5, 1950

Did the Texas admissions

none

The Court held that

The Court argued that

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

Page 3 of 8

Graded Assignment

Painter

Brown v. Board
of Education of
Topeka

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

scheme violate the Equal

Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?

May 17, 1954

Does the segregation of

children in public schools solely
on the basis of race deprive the
minority children of the equal
protection of the laws
guaranteed by the 14th
Amendment?

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

14th

Page 4 of 8

the Equal Protection

Clause required that
Sweatt be admitted to
the university. The
Court found that the
"law school for
Negroes," which was
to have opened in
1947, would have
been grossly unequal
to the University of
Texas Law School

the separate school

would be inferior in a
number of areas,
including faculty,
course variety, library
facilities, legal writing
opportunities, and
overall prestige. The
Court also found that
the mere separation
from the majority of
law students harmed
students' abilities to
compete in the legal
arena.

The Court declared

state laws
establishing
separate public
schools for black and
white students to be
unconstitutional.

This ruling paved the

way for integration and
was a major victory of
the civil rights
movement.[1]

Graded Assignment

Loving v.
Virginia

June 12, 1967

Did Virginia's
Antimiscegenation law violate
the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment?

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

14th

Page 5 of 8

The Court
declared Virginia's ant
i-miscegenation
statute, the "Racial
Integrity Act of 1924",
unconstitutional, as a
violation of the 14th
Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause.

This was
a landmark civil
rights decision of
the United States
Supreme Court which
invalidatedlaws
prohibiting interracial
marriage. The
decision was followed
by an increase in
interracial marriages
in the U.S., and is
remembered annually
on Loving Day, June

Graded Assignment

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

12.

Regents of the
University of
California v.
Bakke

June 26, 1978

Did the University of California

violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection
clause, and the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, by practicing an
affirmative action policy that
resulted in the repeated
rejection of Bakke's application
for admission to its medical
school?

14th

Upheld affirmative
action, allowing race
to be one of several
factors in college
admission policy.

Adarand
Constructors,
Inc. v. Pena

June 12, 1995

Is the presumption of
disadvantage based on race
alone, and consequent
allocation of favored treatment,
a discriminatory practice that
violates the equal protection
principle embodied in the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment?

5th &14th

The court ruled that

racial classifications,
imposed by the
federal government,
must be analyzed
under a standard of
"strict scrutiny," the
most stringent level of
review which requires
that racial
classifications be
narrowly tailored to
further compelling

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

Page 6 of 8

The court ruled

that specific quotas,
such as the 16 out of
100 seats set aside
for minority students
by the University of
California, Davis
School of Medicine,
were impermissible.

Graded Assignment

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

governmental
interests

Grutter v.
Bollinger

June 23, 2003

Does the University of Michigan 14th

Law School's use of racial
preferences in student
admissions violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964?

The supreme court

upheld the affirmative
action admissions
policy of the
University of Michigan
Law School.

Gratz v.
Bollinger

June 23, 2003

Does the University of

Michigan's use of racial
preferences in undergraduate
admissions violate the Equal
Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964?

The court ruled the

University's point
system's
"predetermined point
allocations" that
awarded 20 points to
underrepresented
minorities "ensures
that the diversity
contributions of
applicants cannot be
individually assessed"

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

14th

Page 7 of 8

While the decision did

uphold affirmative
action as a practice,
some expressed
concern about the
social implication of
the extent to which
the decision revised
the definition of
affirmative action.

Graded Assignment

HST510: AP U.S. Government and Politics | Unit 5 | 5.2 Practice 1

and was therefore

unconstitutional.

2009 K12 Inc. All rights reserved.

Copying or distributing without K12s written consent is prohibited.

Page 8 of 8