CL & L: Current Legal Controversies - Spring
2021
Leora Harpaz
Current Legal Controversies
Class Description: This course will examine current legal
controversies as well as ones we can anticipate that will confront
the courts in the future. Some of those legal issues will have
reached the U.S. Supreme Court, others may be before lower courts,
while others may not have reached the stage of litigation. Among
the issues to be discussed are abortion, affirmative action, and
the free speech rights of public-school students.
Thu 10:30-11:45am •
Apr 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, May 6, 13, 20 • 8
sessions
Please use the following link if you want to make suggestions for
topics you would like covered in upcoming classes: http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/CLL/suggestions/
May 27 - End of Term Party
The Supreme Court 2021
The Supreme Court is deciding cases
Without showing any of their faces.
They are busy taking away some rights,
While raising others to still greater heights.
The Justices often don’t all agree,
Dividing by a vote of 6 to 3.
Those on the right are in total control,
Enjoying their new and commanding role.
Marching in lockstep as they stride ahead,
Reveling in the rightward course they tread.
The liberals can wail loud in dissent,
But the rest of the Court will not relent.
Those 3 on the ropes all hope for magic,
Wave a wand to turn the 6 less tragic.
Magic may work in fairy tale endings,
But the Court can’t change based on
pretendings.
Only time will switch its true direction,
A pendulum based on each election.
The Three Liberals
Elena, Sonia, and Stephen
Are shaking their heads and grievin’
They sit on the bench
Inhaling the stench
And dream of their colleagues leavin’
Class 8 - May 20
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
The three issues raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari
filed by the State of Mississippi:
(1) (GRANTED) Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective
abortions are unconstitutional;
(2) (DENIED) Whether the validity of a pre-viability law that
protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children and the
integrity of the medical profession and society should be
analyzed under Planned Parenthood v. Casey‘s “undue burden”
standard or Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt‘s balancing of
benefits and burdens; and
(3) (DENIED) Whether abortion providers have third-party
standing to invalidate a law that protects women’s health from
the dangers of late-term abortions.
U.S. Constitution, Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of
the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all
Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior
to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in
any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the
Senate.
Edwards v. Vannoy:
Majority:
Continuing to articulate a theoretical exception that never
actually applies in practice offers false hope to
defendants, distorts the law, misleads judges, and wastes
the resources of defense counsel, prosecutors, and courts.
Moreover, no one can reasonably rely on an exception that is
non-existent in practice, so no reliance interests can be
affected by forthrightly acknowledging reality. It is time—
probably long past time—to make explicit what has become
increasingly apparent to bench and bar over the last 32
years: New procedural rules do not apply retroactively on
federal collateral review. The watershed exception is
moribund. It must “be regarded as retaining no vitality.”
Dissent:
In overruling a critical aspect of Teague, the majority
follows none of the usual rules of stare decisis. It
discards precedent without a party requesting that action.
And it does so with barely a reason given, much less the
“special justification” our law demands. The majority in
that way compounds its initial error: Not content to
misapply Teague’s watershed provision here, the majority
forecloses any future application. It prevents any
procedural rule ever—no matter how integral to adjudicative
fairness—from benefiting a defendant on habeas review. Thus
does a settled principle of retroactivity law die, in an
effort to support an insupportable ruling.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.
Probable Cause:
Probable cause exists where “the facts and
circumstances” within a law enforcement officer’s
“knowledge and of which [the officer] had
reasonably trustworthy information [are]
sufficient in themselves to warrant a [person]
of reasonable caution in the belief” that
evidence of a crime would be found in a search.
Class 7 - May 13
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):
1. “Our cases recognize ‘the right of the individual, married or
single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into
matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision
whether to bear or beget a child.’ Our precedents ‘have
respected the private realm of family life which the state
cannot enter.’ These matters, involving the most intimate and
personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices
central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the
liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of
liberty is the right to define one’s own
concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the
mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not
define the attributes of personhood were they formed under
compulsion of the State.”
2. “[T]he liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to
the human condition and so unique to the law. The mother who
carries a child to full term is subject to anxieties, to
physical constraints, to pain that only she must bear. That
these sacrifices have from the beginning of the human race been
endured by woman with a pride that ennobles her in the eyes of
others and gives to the infant a bond of love cannot alone be
grounds for the State to insist she make the sacrifice. Her
suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist,
without more, upon its own vision of the woman’s
role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our
history and our culture. The destiny of the woman must be shaped
to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual
imperatives and her place in society.”
3. “A
finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion
that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a
substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion
of a nonviable fetus.”
4. “As with any medical procedure, the State may enact
regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking
an abortion. Unnecessary health regulations that have the
purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a
woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.”
Class 6 - May 6
U.S. Constitution, Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,
in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred
and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal
Suffrage in the Senate.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Class 5 - April 29
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Four Student
Speech Cases: Edited Versions -
http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/JASA/studentspeechcases.pdf
Three Tinker Students: https://img.haikudeck.com/mi/97b50cc6c5071f1e65a512afda9a0ae1.jpeg
Tinker Quotations:
1. In our system, state-operated schools may not be
enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not
possess absolute authority over their students. Students
are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must
respect. . . . In our system, students may not be regarded
as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State
chooses to communicate.
2. “‘The vigilant protection of
constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in
American schools.’ The classroom is peculiarly the
‘marketplace of ideas.’ The Nation’s future depends upon
leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust
exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a
multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of
authoritative selection.’”
3. But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or
apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the
right to freedom of expression. Any departure from
absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation
from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word
spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that
deviates from the views of another person may start an
argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says
we must take this risk; and our history says that it is
this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that
is the basis of our national strength and of the
independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live
in this relatively permissive, often disputatious,
society.
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser:
Photo of Fraser: http://studentfreespeechrights.weebly.com/bethel-school-district-v-fraser.html
Fraser's Speech: http://www.wneclaw.com/lawed/fraserspeech.html
“[P]ublic education must prepare pupils for citizenship in
the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and
manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to
happiness and as indispensable to the practice of
self-government in the community and the nation.” In
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 -77 (1979), we echoed
the essence of this statement of the objectives of public
education as the “inculcat[ion of] fundamental values
necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political
system.”
These fundamental values of “habits and manners of
civility” essential to a democratic society must, of
course, include tolerance of divergent political and
religious views, even when the views expressed may be
unpopular. But these “fundamental values” must also take
into account the sensibilities of others, and, in the case
of a school, the sensibilities of fellow students. The
undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial
views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against
the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students
the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the
most heated political discourse in a democratic society
requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of
the other participants and audiences.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier:
Cathy Kuhlmeier: http://schema-root.org/region/americas/north_america/usa/government/branches/judicial_branch/supreme_court/decisions/schools/hazelwood_v._kuhlmeier/cathy_kuhlmeier.jpg
1. The question whether the First Amendment requires a
school to tolerate particular student speech - the
question that we addressed in Tinker - is different from
the question whether the First Amendment requires a school
affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The
former question addresses educators' ability to silence a
student's personal expression that happens to occur on the
school premises. The latter question concerns educators'
authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical
productions, and other expressive activities that
students, parents, and members of the public might
reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.
These activities may fairly be characterized as part of
the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a
traditional classroom setting, so long as they are
supervised by faculty members and designed to impart
particular knowledge or skills to student participants and
audiences.
2. [W]e hold that educators do not offend the First
Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style
and content of student speech in school-sponsored
expressive activities so long as their actions are
reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
Morse v. Frederick
BONG HiTS 4 JESUS Banner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bong_Hits_for_Jesus.jpg
Banner Held Up By Students: http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070316/070316_banner_hmed_6p.grid-6x2.jpg
Photo of Frederick (then) - http://www.bsalert.com/news/1715/Bong_Hits_For_Jesus_Heads_For_Supreme_Court.html
Class 4 - April 22
Freedom of Information Act - Exemption 5:
Section
552(b)
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are— . . .
.
Section
552(b)(5)
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or
letters that would not be available by law to a party
other than an agency in litigation with the agency,
provided that the deliberative process privilege shall
not apply to records created 25 years or more before
the date on which the records were requested;
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.
Full Text of Freedom of Information Act - https://foia.wiki/wiki/Text_of_the_FOIA
FOIA Exemptions:
Section 552(b)
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—
Section 552(b)(1)
(1)
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive
order;
Section 552(b)(2)
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and
practices of an agency;
Section 552(b)(3)
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other
than section 552b of this title), if that statute--
(A)
(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in
such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA
Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
Section 552(b)(4)
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
Section 552(b)(5)
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters
that would not be available by law to a party other than
an agency in litigation with the agency, provided that the
deliberative process privilege shall not apply to records
created 25 years or more before the date on which the
records were requested;
Section
552(b)(6)
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy;
Section 552(b)(7)
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such
law enforcement records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings,
(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an
impartial adjudication,
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy,
(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a
confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign
agency or authority or any private institution which furnished
information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a
record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement
authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an
agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source,
(E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose
guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention of the law, or
(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or
physical safety of any individual;
Section 552(b)(8)
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of
an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of
financial institutions; or
Section 552(b)(9)
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including
maps, concerning wells.
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be
provided to any person requesting such record after deletion
of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The
amount of information deleted, and the exemption under which
the deletion is made, shall be indicated on the released
portion of the record, unless including that indication would
harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection
under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the
amount of the information deleted, and the exemption under
which the deletion is made, shall be indicated at the place in
the record where such deletion is made.
Class 3 - April 15
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not be infringed.
Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966):
Congress exercised its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment
in an inventive manner when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of
1965. First: the measure prescribes remedies for voting
discrimination which go into effect without any need for prior
adjudication. This was clearly a legitimate response to the
problem, for which there is ample precedent under other
constitutional provisions. Congress had found that case-by-case
litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent
discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of
time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics
invariably encountered in these lawsuits. . . . Second: the Act
intentionally confines these remedies to a small number of
States and political subdivisions . . . . This, too, was a
permissible method of dealing with the problem. Congress had
learned that substantial voting discrimination presently occurs
in certain sections of the country . . . . In acceptable
legislative fashion, Congress chose to limit its attention to
the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary.
The doctrine of the equality of States, invoked by South
Carolina, does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies
only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union,
and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently
appeared.
Excerpts from Shelby County v. Holder:
1. We have since noted that the Act “authorizes federal
intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking,”
and represents an “extraordinary departure from the traditional
course of relations between the States and the Federal
Government.”
2. And despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act
applies to only nine States (and several additional counties).
While one State waits months or years and expends funds to
implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put
the same law into effect immediately, through the normal
legislative process.
3. As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions
can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.”
Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were
scheduled to expire after five years.
Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they
have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last
until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions
that originally justified these measures no longer characterize
voting in the covered jurisdictions. By 2009, “the racial gap in
voter registration and turnout [was] lower in the States
originally covered by §5 than it [was] nationwide.”
Dissent by Justice Ginsburg:
Instead, the Court strikes §4(b)’s coverage provision because,
in its view, the provision is not based on “current conditions.”
It discounts, however, that one such condition was the
preclearance remedy in place in the covered jurisdictions, a
remedy Congress designed both to catch discrimination before it
causes harm, and to guard against return to old ways. Volumes of
evidence supported Congress’ determination that the prospect of
retrogression was real. Throwing out preclearance when it has
worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes
is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you
are not getting wet.
Voting Rights Act:
Section 2
a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the
right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of
race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth
in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection
(b).
(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown
that the political processes leading to nomination or election
in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to
participation by members of a class of citizens protected by
subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than
other members of the electorate to participate in the
political process and to elect representatives of their
choice. The extent to which members of a protected
class have been elected to office in the State or political
subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered:
Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to
have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to
their proportion in the population.
Section 3(c):
If in any proceeding instituted by the Attorney General under
any statute to enforce the guarantees of the fifteenth amendment
in any State or political subdivision the court finds that
violations of the fifteenth amendment justifying equitable
relief have occurred within the territory of such State or
political subdivision, the court, in addition to such relief as
it may grant, shall retain jurisdiction for such period as it
may deem appropriate and during such period no voting
qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice,
or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force
or effect at the time the proceeding was commenced shall be
enforced unless and until the court finds that such
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of
denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or
color: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced if the
qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure
has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other
appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the
Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an
objection within sixty days after such submission, except that
neither the court's finding nor the Attorney General's failure
to object shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of
such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or
procedure.
Class 2 - April 8
14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . .
.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Full Text of Freedom of Information Act - https://foia.wiki/wiki/Text_of_the_FOIA
FOIA Exemptions:
Section 552(b)
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—
Section 552(b)(1)
(1)
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy and
(B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive
order;
Section 552(b)(2)
(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices
of an agency;
Section 552(b)(3)
(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than
section 552b of this title), if that statute--
(A)
(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such
a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to
particular types of matters to be withheld; and
(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of
2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
Section 552(b)(4)
(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained
from a person and privileged or confidential;
Section 552(b)(5)
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that
would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in
litigation with the agency, provided that the deliberative
process privilege shall not apply to records created 25 years or
more before the date on which the records were requested;
Section 552(b)(6)
(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy;
Section 552(b)(7)
(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement
records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings,
(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an
impartial adjudication,
(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy,
(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a
confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency
or authority or any private institution which furnished
information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record
or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in
the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting
a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information
furnished by a confidential source,
(E) would disclose techniques and
procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions,
or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or
(F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or
physical safety of any individual;
Section 552(b)(8)
(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or
condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of
an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of
financial institutions; or
Section 552(b)(9)
(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including
maps, concerning wells.
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be
provided to any person requesting such record after deletion
of the portions which are exempt under this subsection. The
amount of information deleted, and the exemption under which
the deletion is made, shall be indicated on the released
portion of the record, unless including that indication would
harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection
under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the
amount of the information deleted, and the exemption under
which the deletion is made, shall be indicated at the place in
the record where such deletion is made.
Class 1 - April 1
Equal
Protection Standards
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.
14th Amendment
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No
state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws. . . .
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article.
Affirmative Action Cases: http://www.lharpaz.com/ContinuingEd/CLL/AffirmativeActionCases.pdf