public interest law policy n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Public Interest Law & Policy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Public Interest Law & Policy

Public Interest Law & Policy

106 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Public Interest Law & Policy

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Interest Law & Policy Class 9 Ronald W. Staudt September 27, 2007

  2. Upcoming Events • Wednesday, October 10th, 3:00pm – 10th Floor Event Room • Judge Diane Wood: Immigration Adjudication under Stress in the 7th Circuit • Friday, Oct. 12th at noon in the Event Room: • Justice Sandile Ngcobo of the South African Constitutional Court will give a talk on socioeconomic rights in South Africa

  3. Today’s assignment Read: • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958) Review: • Case Study 1- Brown v. Board of Education and websiteby Frank Bieszczat, Farterria Bundy and Stephanie Crowell. • Brown v. Board of Education Digital archive • Arkansas First Integration Riots

  4. Brown I, holding • We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

  5. Bolling v. Sharpe • Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.

  6. Brown II • How should Brown I be enforced: “Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to remand the cases to those courts.”

  7. Brown II • the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. During this period of transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases.

  8. Brown II “The judgments below, except that in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.”

  9. Cooper v. Aaron • School Board plan to integrate- gradual plan from 1957-1963- challenged by black plaintiffs and approved by DC and Ct of Appeals. • Facts from video • 101st from 9/25/1957- 11/27/1957. then the federalized National Guard • Feb, 1958 School Board asks for 2 ½ year delay. • DC oks delay but 8th Cir reverses. • Sequence in September 1958.

  10. Cooper v. Aaron • Our constitutional ideal of equal justice under law is thus made a living truth. • President Clinton with Little Rock 9 ten years ago.The 40th year site. • In 1960 0% of 1.4 million blacks in racially mixed schools in Ala, Miss., Ga., La., N.C. • In 1964 2% • What is the legacy of Brown?