Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________

Bridges: Humanities Class: ___________

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES

Case: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

I. Q: What was the important law being judged in the case? A: State of Louisiana Separate Car Act In 1890, Louisiana passed a law called the Separate Car Act, which stated "that all railway companies carrying passengers in their trains in this state, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races," The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail.

II. Q: Who filed the case? A: Homer Plessy. On June 7, 1892, 30-year-old Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy, who was of racially mixed decent (one-eight black and seven-eighths white), was a United States citizen and a resident of the state of Louisiana. When he entered the train, he took a seat in the coach where only whites were permitted to sit. Plessy could easily pass for white but under Louisiana law, he was considered black despite his light complexion and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car. Plessy deliberately sat in the white section and identified himself as black. When confronted by police, Plessy did not move and was ejected with force from the train. He was arrested and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plessy was sent to jail for violating the Louisiana Act of 1890, which required railway companies to provide "separate but equal" accommodations for white and black races. Plessy argued that this law was unconstitutional. Plessy's lawyer argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

III. Q: What was the issue? A: Did the Separate Car Act violate the Constitutional rights of black people? Whether laws that provide for the separation of races violated the rights of black people as guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

14th Amendment - Equal Protection Clause states:“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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

IV. Q: What was the American society like at the time? A: Most white society would not accept black people as equals.

The Civil War ended in 1865, but the country was still divided in many ways. Throughout the southern states many laws (Black Codes) were passed to take away the rights of the newly freed slaves (freedmen). To protect the rights of the freedmen, new amendments were ratified. The 13th Amendment freed the slaves, the 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection for all citizens and the 15th Amendment prohibited

states from denying the right to vote because of race or skin color. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are also known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Even though the southern states agreed to ratify them, it was clear that white society would not accept black people as equals. Many black people suffered from discrimination and violence. Many states also passed laws to keep blacks and white segregated.

V. Q: What was the result of the case? A: The Separate Car Act did not violate the constitution.

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson eventually made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and in a vote of 7 to 1 the Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The main decision of the Court rested on the conclusion that a society can be “Separate but Equal.”

VI. Decisions of the Judges

A) Decision of 7 judges Majority (written by Judge Brown)

“The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but… it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color…”

“Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places… have been generally recognized…The most common example of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power… Laws forbidding the intermarriage of the two races… have been universally recognized as within the power of the State…”

“We consider the underlying falsehood of the plaintiff's argument… that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a mark of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that meaning upon it.”

“The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation… We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of a natural liking, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. Legislation is powerless to end racial instincts or to abolish differences based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.”

B) Decision of minority 1 judge in dissent (written by Judge Harlan)

The 14th Amendment declared “that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color.”

“If a State can make as a rule that whites and blacks shall not travel as passengers in the same railroad coach, why may it not so regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of a street and black citizens to keep on the other? Further… why may not the State require the separation in railroad coaches of native and naturalized citizens of the United States, or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?”

“But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”

VII. People involved

Homer Plessy – Homer Plessy was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on March 17, 1862, to a mixed race family. His family could pass for white and were considered "free people of color." Plessy thought of himself as 1/8 black since his great-grandmother was from Africa. When he was old enough, he took the job as a shoemaker. In 1887, at the age of 25, Plessy started

fighting for civil rights. He served as vice president of the Justice, Protective, Educational and Social Club to reform New Orleans' public education system. In 1892, Plessy agreed to protest the Separate Car Act by purposely violating the law in order to challenge its constitutionality in court. He was then arrested and jailed and would later bring his case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Citizen’s Committee - A group made up mostly of "Creoles of color." The group contended that the “Separate Car Act is unconstitutional. It is like a slap in the face of every member of the black race." The group planned a test case to prove the unconstitutionality of the law. They hired Albion Tourgee, a white New York attorney who had previously fought for African Americans, to come to Louisiana and lead the challenge. In 1892, the group asked Homer Plessy to act against the state law by sitting in a railcar designated for white people only. John H. Ferguson – Was the defendant in the case. Judge John H. Ferguson was the Judge of the Criminal District Court of New Orleans. After Plessy was arrested he appeared in Ferguson’s courtroom. Judge Ferguson had previously ruled that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies as it wanted as long as it was operated solely within the state of Louisiana. Ferguson found Plessy guilty of not leaving a "white" car and declared the Separate Car Act was in this case constitutional.

Albion Tourgee - Albion Tourgee was perhaps the nation's most outspoken white critic of the unequal treatment of African Americans in the late 1880s and 1890s. Tourgée had called for resistance to the Louisiana Separate Car Act in his widely read newspaper column. Largely because of this column, Tourgée became well known for his bold denunciations of lynching, segregation, disfranchisement, white supremacy, and scientific racism, and he was the Citizens' Committee's first choice to lead their legal challenge to the new Louisiana segregation law.

Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________

Bridges: Humanities Class: ___________

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES

Case: Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

I. Q: What was the important law being judged in the case? A: The Missouri Compromise of 1820

Missouri Compromise of 1820

After gaining independence from Britain, the U.S. would continue to grow in size by gaining more and more territory in the west. This drive westward is called Manifest Destiny and one of the first acquisitions of territory was the Louisiana Purchase. As the country grew, it also encountered more problems. One major problem was slavery. The southern states in the country wanted new states to also allow slavery, while the northern states wanted new states to be free states. In the end, there was a compromise between the slave states and the free states. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a law passed by Congress that divided the new western lands from the Louisiana Territory into slave states and free states. Any new states above the 36 30 parallel would be free and any new state below below would be slave.

II. Q: Who filed the case? A: Dred Scott

Dred Scott was born into slavery in 1795 in the State of Virginia as property of a plantation owner named Peter Blow. In 1830 the Blow family took Scott with them when they relocated to St. Louis, Missouri.

They sold him to John Emerson, a doctor serving in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson, later took Scott to the free state of Illinois. In the spring of 1836, after a stay of two and a half years, Emerson moved to a fort in Wisconsin another free state. While there, Scott met and married Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local justice of the peace. Emerson would purchase Harriet so Scott and his wife could live together.

Scott's extended stay in Illinois and Wisconsin, free states, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom, where slavery was also prohibited. But Scott never made the claim while living in the free lands perhaps because he was unaware of his rights at the time.

After two years, Emerson moved to the south and brought Scott with him. After Emerson's death in 1843, Emerson's widow Sanford, who now owned Scott, wanted to send Scott to work for another army captain and rather than go to the new army captain Scott decided to seek freedom for himself and his wife. First he offered to buy his freedom from Mrs. Emerson $300, but the offer was refused. Scott then sought freedom through the courts by suing Sanford.

In 1854, the highest Court in Missouri ruled that Scott was still a slave and belonged to Sanford. Scott then appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court.

III. Q: What was the issue? A: Does a slave become free if he is brought to a free state where slavery is illegal?

IV. Q: What was the American society like at the time? A: The country was bitterly divided on the issue of slavery and would later go to war.

The country at this time was very divided on the issue of slavery. The Southern economy was still very dependent on slaves to work on plantations, whereas the North was becoming more industrial and dependent on an immigrant workforce for its factories. Many people in the North were abolitionists. Abolitionists are people who believed slavery was immoral and wanted the practice to be abolished. In many states the fight between slave supporters and abolitionist became violent. The Missouri Compromise 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 were meant to solve the problem by drawing a physical dividing line between free and slave territories, but it only delayed the conflict. Eventually, the conflict over slavery would lead to the Civil War.

V. Q: What was the result of the case? A: The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was a slave.

The Supreme Court’s decision included three important conclusions.

1) It found that because Scott was a person of African descent, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue in court. Black people could not become citizens

2) It also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

3) Slaves were property only and it would be a violation of people’s natural rights to take away people’s property by freeing their slaves because of traveling to a different state.

VI. Q: What effect did the ruling in the case have on the country? A: The ruling made many northerners and abolitionists angry.

Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself. Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln President of U.S. Jefferson Davis President of Confederate

VII. The People Involved

Dred Scott - Born a slave in 1795. Scott would become one of the most important people in American history. After his owner’s death Scott tried to get his freedom from his new owner, first by paying for it and then in the courts. Scott would eventually lose his case in the Supreme Court. After he lost the case, his first owners paid for his freedom.

John Sanford – He was the defendant in the case who Scott sued for his freedom. Sanford inherited ownership of Dred Scott after John Emerson’s death. He refused to grant Scott his freedom, even after Scott offered to pay him.

Roger Taney - The Chief Justice of the United States was a former slave owner. Although he had freed his own slaves he still believed that slave ownership was a right and that it was wrong for northern states to abolish slavery. He hoped that his decision in the Dred Scott case would end the debate on slavery once and for all.

Abolitionist

John Brown was a Abolitionist leader. His most famous act was a raid on Harper’s Ferry.

Abolitionists believed that slave ownership was wrong and immoral. One of the most famous abolitionists during the 1850’s was John Brown. After seeing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case, Brown believed that the only way to end slavery was through violence. He and his men fought and killed many pro slavery supporters.

Peter Blow - Was the first owner of Dred Scott, and later sold Scott. Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________

Bridges: Humanities Class: ___________

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES

Case: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

I. Q: What was the important law being judged in the case? A: Segregation laws in the southern states that required white children and black children to attend separate schools.

During this time, a large portion of America was racially segregated, meaning white people and black people were kept apart in much of daily life. In Kansas there was a law since 1879 that said that Board of Education can maintain separate elementary schools for black and white students. The result of the law was that white children went to white schools and black children went to black schools.

II. Q: Who filed the case? A: Oliver Brown the father of a young African American girl.

Oliver L. Brown was a parent and an African American. His daughter Linda was in the third grade. To get to her segregated school Linda had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, which was one mile away, while there was a white school just seven blocks from her house. In 1951, at the urging of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Brown and other African American parents attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school. They were all rejected and directed to enroll in the segregated schools.

III. Q: What was the issue? A: Is “Separate but Equal” inherently unequal? Does segregation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution?

14th Amendment - Equal Protection Clause states: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 … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

IV. Q: What was the American society like at the time? A: In the southern states many aspects of American life was legally segregated meaning white people and black people lived, worked, played and went to school apart form each other, under the law.

In 1954, large portions of the United States had racially segregated schools, which were made legal by the Supreme Court 50 years earlier in the case Plessy v. Ferguson. By the mid-twentieth century, civil rights groups set up legal and political, challenges to racial segregation. In the early 1950s, NAACP lawyers brought class action lawsuits on behalf of black schoolchildren and their families in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, seeking court orders to compel school districts to let black students attend white public schools. Brown claimed that Topeka's racial segregation violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the city's black and white schools were not equal to each other and never could be.

V. Q: What was the result of the case? A: Separate was NOT equal. Segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

In a unanimous (9-0) decision written by Chief Judge Earl Warren, the Supreme Court held that racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal education today. Public education in the 20th century, said the Court, had become an essential component of a citizen's public life, forming the basis of democratic citizenship, normal socialization, and professional training. In this context, any child denied a good education would be unlikely to succeed in life. Where a state, therefore, has undertaken to provide universal education, such education becomes a right that must be afforded equally to both blacks and whites.

Were the black and white schools "substantially" equal to each other, as the lower courts had found? After reviewing psychological studies showing black girls in segregated schools had low racial self-esteem, the Court concluded that separating children on the basis of race creates dangerous inferiority complexes that may adversely affect black children's ability to learn. The Court concluded that, even if the tangible facilities were equal between the black and white schools, racial segregation in schools is "inherently unequal" and is thus always unconstitutional. At least in the context of public schools, Plessy v. Ferguson was overruled. In the Brown II case a decided year later, the Court ordered the states to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed."

VI. Decision of the entire Supreme Court (written by Justice Warren)

Supreme Court. Chief Judge Earl Warren in the center

“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.”

“Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.”

“To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.”

“Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.”

“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 other similarly situated are deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________

Bridges: Humanities Class: ___________

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES

Case: Loving v. Virginia (1967)

I. Q: What was the important law being judged in the case? A: Racial Integrity Act, which made interracial marriage illegal.

The Racial Integrity Act divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (essentially all non-white people including numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Native American ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage by criminalizing all marriages between white

persons and non-white persons.

Map of the history of Anti-Interracial Marriage Laws in the United States

II. Q: Who filed the case? A: Richard and Mildred Loving.

Richard Loving was white and his wife Mildred Loving was black. They were residents of

Virginia but it was illegal for white people to marry non-white people to marry in Virginia so they

went to Washington D.C. to get married. However, when they returned home, the police raided

the Loving’s home. The Lovings were arrested, jailed and charged with an illegal interracial

marriage.

The Judge in the case in banishing the Lovings from Virginia stated “Almighty God

created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate

continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such

marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to

mix.”

For five years, the Lovings lived in Washington, where Richard worked as a bricklayer.

The couple had three children. Yet they longed to return home to their family and friends in

Caroline County. That's when the couple contacted Bernard Cohen, a young attorney who was

volunteering at the ACLU, to take their case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

III. Q: What was the issue? A: Are laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional in violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

14th Amendment - Equal Protection ClauseAll 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 … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

IV. Q: What was the American society like at the time? A: In many parts of America, not just the south, many states had laws that made interracial marriage illegal.

Despite the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1957 making segregation illegal in public schools, there were many aspects of life that were still segregated. It took another two decades and many more cases before legalized segregation was eliminated from the America. One of the most important cases after the Brown case was Loving v. Virginia.

V. Q: What was the result of the case? A: It was unconstitutional to make interracial marriage illegal.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the law against interracial marriages violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Court had previously been hesitant to address this issue, fearing that striking down such laws so soon after striking down segregation would only further inflame resistance in the South to racial equality.

Although a right to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court held that such a right is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment because such decisions are fundamental to our survival and our consciences. As such, they must necessarily reside with the individual rather than with the state.

VI. Q: What is the legacy of the case today? A: The debate over gay marriage

The Supreme Court’s landmark gay-rights decision in United States v. Windsor, last June, invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the Court stopped short of finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The decision indicated that while the Supreme Court was willing to substantially advance the cause of same-sex marriage, it was not

yet ready to find a constitutional right to marriage equality.

Lower courts have taken the Supreme Court’s decision further. In December 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Utah repeatedly cited the Loving case in its decision in Kitchen v. Herbert, which held Utah's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Also In February 2014, the District Court in Virginia in the case struck down Virginia's ban on same sex marriage.

Also, after the Supreme Court’s decisions in June, four more states moved to legalize same-sex marriage, with New Jersey being the first.

Mildred Loving: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what loving are all about.”

Name: _______________________________________ Date: ____________

Bridges: Humanities Class: ___________

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES

Case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The Debate over Affirmative Action

I. Q: What was the important law being judged in the case? A: Californian colleges’ rules that used race as a factor for college admissions

Some colleges when they choose which applicants to accept use race as a factor by giving extra consideration to certain races. This is known as Affirmative Action, and it is meant to favor certain people who have historically been discriminated against. Colleges used affirmative action policies to increase the population of African American and certain other minority students in their schools.

II. Q: Who filed the case? A: Allan Bakke

In 1973 Allan Bakke a 33 year-old white man applied to 12 medical schools. He was older for most medical school applicants because he had served many years in the army. He

was qualified and scored very high marks in the entrance exams and interviews. However, Bakke was rejected by all 12 schools. One of the California schools that Bakke applied to had a special admissions program for minorities. Bakke applied to this program and was rejected even though some African American students with lower scores were accepted. Bakke reapplied a year later and was again rejected. He decided to take his case to court arguing that the special admissions program violated his Constitutional rights.

III. Q: What was the issue? A: Is it Constitutional to give preferential treatment to minorities when it comes to college admissions?

14th Amendment - Equal Protection Clause states: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 … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

IV. History of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action policies first started during the 1940’s under President Roosevelt, but really began to take shape during the Civil Rights Movement under President Johnson. Today some manners of affirmative action policies are in place for college admissions, jobs, loans, etc.

V. Q: What is the result of the case? A: Schools can use race as factor for college admissions but cannot have a quota.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis.

California's use of racial quotas in this case, however, did not meet those requirements and violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

The fact that blacks have historically had been discriminated against more than whites was irrelevant to this case, because racial quota systems, whether applied against whites or blacks, are always "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Thus, the Court ruled that the school's quota system "must be rejected ... as racially invalid" under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court also ruled, however, that the state "has a legitimate and substantial interest in eliminating the disabling effects of identified discrimination." An admissions department may then attempt to "redress" these findings of past discrimination by considering an applicant's race as a "plus" factor among many in its admissions decisions. Such a race-conscious consideration, however, may only be one of many factors used in assessing each applicant, and the race of each applicant may never be a preclusive factor in granting admission.

In sum, racial quotas are always unconstitutional, but affirmative action programs may be constitutional if race is considered as one of many admission factors and used to remedy

past findings of discrimination and to promote diversity.

VI. Q: What is the legacy of the case today? A: Many states use affirmative action policies for college admissions but more and more states are going away from affirmative action.

In the 30 years since this ruling, public and private universities have crafted affirmative action programs consistent with Bakke's requirements. However, in recent years several states have been moving back from the use of affirmative action especially for college admissions. In 1996 California passed a law that banned the use of race as a factor for college admission.

In 2006, Michigan proposed a law similar to California’s that disallows affirmative action for college admissions. The law prohibits Michigan’s public universities, colleges, and school districts from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment for any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Michigan would join California, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Virginia with similar laws.

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case from people suing the State of Michigan over the law against affirmative action. The Supreme Court will decide whether the ban is constitutional, taking into account the US constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

Oklahoma is the next state to consider changing its laws to end affirmative action practices for college admissions.