The legislature of the fictitious state of Xanadu passes a law that states “All people are welcome at all state-run swimming, beach and golf facilities, as long as they are white. Non-whites may not use any of those facilities. ” Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.
A week later, the state passes a new law that reads “Because we don’t believe that we are capable of managing integrated swimming, beach and golf facilities, we are hereby closing all such state-run facilities. ” Brenda sues again in federal court, asking the court to rule that the closure of the facilities is likewise unconstitutional. Brenda argues that even though the closure itself is not discriminatory since it applies equally to everyone, the closure should nevertheless be prevented because it was obviously done for a purpose that implies discrimination against non-whites.
You are a clerk in the federal district court for the District of Xanadu. Please find one Federal case from any jurisdiction that would be very relevant to apply to this scenario. Summarize the facts of the case, discuss the Court’s reasoning, and explain why you agree or disagree with the Court’s ruling in terms of the 14th Amendment. Also, explain how that case could be applied to our scenario. Case: PALMER ET AL. v. THOMPSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, ET AL. No. 107 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 403 U. S. 217; 91 S. Ct.
The Essay on State Vs Federal Powers
The United States of America prides itself on it's democratic government, but the power of the federal government todays threatens American democracy. The Federal Government should grant states more powers to govern themselves. States' Rights, in United States history, advocated the strict limitation of the advantages of the federal government to those powers assigned to it in the Constitution of ...
1940; 29 L. Ed. 2d 438; 1971 U. S. LEXIS 27 December 14, 1970, Argued June 14, 1971, Decided This case has a similar background to those of the assignment. The original action is based in 1962 in the city of Jackson, Mississippi. In that lawsuit, Clark v. Thompson, 206 F. Supp. 539 (SD Miss. 1962), the city maintained five public parks, swimming pools, golf links and other facilities that are used by the public that was racially segregated. Four of the pools were used by whites and one by Blacks. The plaintiffs brought an action in the U.
S. District Court seeking a judgment that the state enforced segregation of the races was a violation of the 13th and 14th amendments, and asked for an injunction to forbid such practices. The District Court entered a judgment stating that enforced segregation denied equal protection of the laws but it declined to issue an injunction. After wards the city proceeded to desegregate the public parks, golf courses, and city zoo. But, the city council decided not to try to operate the public swimming pools on a desegregated basis.
They surrendered the lease on one pool and closed the other four. Afterwards several Black citizens of Jackson then filed this suit, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 US 217, to force the city to reopen the pools and operate them on a desegregated basis. This case was argued December 14, 1970 and a decision on this case was not made until June 14, 1971. After hearing the case, the courts finding was, the closing was justified to preserve peace and order and because the pools could not be operated economically on an integrated basis.
It stated that the city’s action did not deny Blacks equal protection under the law because all swimming facilities where closed. The court rejected that the pools had been closed to avoid desegregation. Also it held the city’s action didn’t deny black citizens equal protection of the laws. The Court felt as if the closing of the pools was not discriminatory because they closed all pools not just the ones for Blacks. The Court asked the question, was the closing of the state pools an action that denies “equal protection of the laws” to Blacks. They felt the answer was no since both races received the same treatment.
The Essay on Federal Vs State Courts
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance ...
The Courts also felt that neither the 14th amendment nor any Act of Congress purports to impose a duty on a State to begin to operate or to continue to operate public swimming pools. They felt that since this was not a case where whites are permitted to use public facilities while blacks were denied, nor a case where a city is maintaining different sets of facilities for blacks and whites and enforcing them to remain separate that there was no reason to force the city to reopen the swimming pools. They felt that it was constitutional because the city showed that integrated pools could not be maintained safely and economically.
I do have to say that I disagree with the decision made by the court, which is probably why this particular case has been question. In other cases such as: Hernandez v. Woodard, 714 F. Supp. 963, 1989 and Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315, 1979. I believe that technically the decision made did not violate the 14th amendment, for reason stated above that everyone received the same treatment and that the privilege was taken away from all and not just one race and that they can’t force the State to run a public facility.
But it does make you think, why is it as soon as the State was mandated to integrate the swimming pools a decision was made to close them, because the State felt as if they would not be able to maintain them economically and safely. Before the judgment all 4 of the pools were ran via the State with no issues, they paid the lease and they maintained a clean and safe environment. I feel that if they were able to continue to run the public parks, city zoo and golf courses, what made the swimming pool so much different.
Possibly because black and whites would both be in the same water in an enclosed amount of space, which makes the interaction and the touching between the races, a lot easier. I feel that even though closing the swimming pools to everyone didn’t technically violate the 14th amendment that it was still done to condone segregation. The fact that this was done immediately after the decision to desegregate was made also leads you to believe that the act was discriminatory against non-whites. Unfortunately, the courts did not see it that way.
The Term Paper on State or Parent Decision?
Hannah Poling, a 19 month old, was diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving five vaccinations in one day. Before receiving these vaccinations Hannah was a healthy child without any characteristic of autism. The Polings, believing the vaccines to have caused her change, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, and won. The courts ruled that the vaccines she had ...
