Equal Protection Case Digest.docx

7/23/2019 Equal Protection Case Digest.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/equal-protection-case-digestdocx 1/8

EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW

TITLE: Philippine Judges Association vs PradoCRUZ, J .:

FACTS:The main target of this petition is **ection !" of R.A. #o. $!"%. These measures &ithdra& the fran'ing privilege from theC, CA, RTC, (TC and the )and Registration Commission and its Registers of eeds, along &ith certain other government offices. The petitioners are mem+ers of the lo&er courts &ho feel that their official functions as udges &ill +epreudiced +- the a+ovenamed measures. The petition assails the constitutionalit- of R.A. #o. $!"% /see 0U1 for thegrounds stated +- the petitioners2.

ISSUE:34# RA #o.$!"% is unconstitutional +ased on the follo&ing grounds:52 its *title em+races more than one su+ect and does not e6press its purposes7/82 it did not pass the re9uired readings in +oth ouses of Congress and printed copies of the +ill in its final form &ere notdistri+uted among the mem+ers +efore its passage7 and /!2 it is discriminator- and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciar-.

HELD:5. The petitioners; contention is untena+le. The title of the +ill is not re9uired to +e an inde6 to the +od- of the act, or to +eas comprehensive as to cover ever- single detail of the measure. 0t has +een held that if the title fairl- indicates thegeneral su+ect, and reasona+l- covers all the provisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the

people, there is sufficient compliance &ith the constitutional re9uirement. 0n the case at +ar, the repealing clause &hichincludes the &ithdra&al of fran'ing privileges is merel- the effect and not the su+ect of the statute7 and it is the su+ect,not the effect of a la&, &hich is re9uired to +e +riefl- e6pressed in its title.

8. This argument is unaccepta+le. 3hile a conference committee is the mechanism for compromising differences +et&eenthe enate and the ouse, it is not limited in its urisdiction to this 9uestion. 0t ma- propose an entirel- ne& provision. Thecourt also added that said the +ill in 9uestion &as dul- approved +- the enate and the ouse of Representatives. 0t &asenrolled &ith its certification +- enate President and pea'er of the ouse of Representatives. 0t &as then presented toand approved +- President the President. Under the doctrine of separation po&ers, the Court ma- not in9uire +e-ond thecertification of the approval of a +ill from the presiding officers of Congress. An enrolled +ill is conclusive upon theJudiciar-. The court therefore declined to loo' into the petitioners; charges. <oth the enrolled +ill and the legislative

ournals certif- that the measure &as dul- enacted. The court is +ound +- such official assurances from a coordinatedepartment of the government.

!. =es, the clause denies the Judiciar- the e9ual protection of the la&s guaranteed for all persons or things similarl-situated. The distinction made +- the la& is superficial. 0t is not +ased on su+stantial distinctions that ma'e realdifferences +et&een the Judiciar- and the grantees of the fran'ing privilege /Pres, >P, enators etc.2. 0f the pro+lem of therespondents is the loss of revenues from the fran'ing privilege, the remed-, it seems to us, is to &ithdra& it altogether from all agencies of government. The pro+lem is not solved +- retaining it for some and &ithdra&ing it from others,especiall- &here there is no su+stantial distinction +et&een those favored, &hich ma- or ma- not need it at all, and theJudiciar-, &hich definitel- needs it.

Therefore, ec !" of RA $!%" is U#C4#T0TUT04#A).

* ?An Act Creating the Philippine Postal Corporation, efining its Po&ers, @unctions and Responsi+ilities, Providing for Regulation of the 0ndustr- and for 4ther Purposes Connected There&ith.?

** ec. !". Repealing Clause. All acts, decrees, orders, e6ecutive orders, instructions, rules and regulations or partsthereof inconsistent &ith the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingl-.

All fran'ing privileges authoriBed +- la& are here+- repealed, e6cept those provided for under Common&ealth Act #o.8", Repu+lic Acts #um+ered D, 5EF, 5%5%, 8FE$ and "F"D. The Corporation ma- continue the fran'ing privilege under Circular #o. !" dated 4cto+er 8%, 5D$$ and that of the >ice President, under such arrangements and conditions as ma-o+viate a+use or unauthoriBed use thereof.



ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ5F5 P0) 5""

Facts: The Congress of the Philippines enacted the act &hich nationaliBes the retail trade +usiness, Repu+lic Act #o.55EF entitled GAn Act to Regulate the Retail <usiness,H prohi+iting aliens in general to engage in retail trade in our countr-.

Petitioner, for and in his o&n +ehalf and on +ehalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversel-affected +- the provisions of RA #o. 55EF, +rought this action to o+tain a udicial declaration that said Act isunconstitutional.

Issue: 3hether Congress in enacting R.A. #o. 55EF violated the U# Charter, the U# eclaration of uman Rights andthe PhilippineChinese Treat- of Amit-.

Held: The U# Charter imposes no strict or legal o+ligations regarding the rights and freedom of their su+ects, and theeclaration of uman Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievementfor all peoples and all nations.

The Treat- of Amit- +et&een the Repu+lic of the Philippines and the Repu+lic of China guarantees e9ualit- of treatment tothe Chinese nationals Gupon the same terms as the nationals of another countr-. <ut the nationals of China are notdiscriminated against +ecause nationals of all other countries, e6cept those of the United tates, &ho are granted specialrights +- the Constitution, are all prohi+ited from engaging in the retail trade.

<ut even supposing that the la& infringes upon the said treat-, the treat- is al&a-s su+ect to 9ualification or amendment+- a su+se9uent la&, and the same ma- never curtail or restrict the scope of the police po&er of the tate.

De Guzman vs. COMELEC

GR No. 129118 Topic: Appointment of Personnel of ConComsFACTS: RA 8189 was enacted on !ne 1"# 199$ and appro%ed &' President Fidel (. Ramos on !ne 11# 199$.Section )) t*ereof pro%ides:

+S,C. )). Reassignment of Election Ocers. - No ,lection /cer s*all *old o/ce in a partic!lar cit' or

m!nicipalit' for more t*an fo!r 0) 'ears. An' election o/cer w*o# eit*er at t*e time of t*e appro%al of t*isAct or s!&se!ent t*ereto# *as ser%ed for at least fo!r 0) 'ears in a partic!lar cit' or m!nicipalit' s*alla!tomaticall' &e reassi3ned &' t*e Commission to a new station o!tside t*e ori3inal con3ressionaldistrict.+

Petitioners# w*o are election o/cers# assail RA 8189 and its implementin3 resol!tions insofar as t*e' areenc!m&ered &' t*e a!tomatic reassi3nment to di4erent stations.

5SS6,: 1 7N t*e pro%ision %iolates e!al protection 2 7N it %iolates sec!rit' of ten!re 7N it!ndermines C,;,C<s own a!t*orit' to appoint=,;>: 1 T*e +e!al protection cla!se+ of t*e 198? Constit!tion permits a %alid classi@cation !nder t*efollowin3 conditions:1. T*e classi@cation m!st rest on s!&stantial distinctions2. T*e classi@cation m!st &e3ermane to t*e p!rpose of t*e law. T*e classi@cation m!st not &e limited to eistin3 conditions onl'

and). T*e classi@cation m!st appl' e!all' to all mem&ers of t*e same class. T*e pro%ision satis@es t*esef!rt*ermore# it *as for its p!rpose promotin3 impartialit'.

2 T*e r!le t*at o!tlaws !nconsented transfers as anat*ema to sec!rit' of ten!re applies onl' to an o/cerw*o is appointed - not merel' assi3ned - to a partic!lar station. S!c* a r!le does not proscri&e a transfercarried o!t !nder a speci@c stat!te t*at empowers t*e *ead of an a3enc' to periodicall' reassi3n t*eemplo'ees and o/cers in order to impro%e t*e ser%ice of t*e a3enc' 0Sta. aria %s. ;opeB. (iolation of sec!rit' of ten!re can onl' &e in%oed w*en an emplo'ee is !nd!l' dismissed from ser%ice. Section )) esta&lis*es a 3!ideline for t*e C,;,C to follow. Said section pro%ides t*e criterion or &asisfor t*e reassi3nment or transfer of an election o/cer and does not depri%e t*e C,;,C of its power toappoint# and maintain its a!t*orit' o%er its o/cials and emplo'ees. As a matter of fact# t*e !estionedC,;,C resol!tions and directi%es ill!strate t*at it is still t*e C,;,C w*ic* *as t*e power to reassi3nand transfer its o/cials and emplo'ees. D!t as a 3o%ernment a3enc' tased wit* t*e implementation and

enforcement of election laws# t*e C,;,C is d!t' &o!nd to compl' wit* t*e laws passed &' Con3ress.

G.R. N. L!"#$%& Fe'(ua() *$+ *%,-



OROC SUGAR COPAN/+ INC.+ Plaintiff-Appellant , vs. THE TREASURER OF OROC CIT/+ THE UNICIPAL0OARD OF OROC CIT/+ HON. ESTE0AN C. CONE1OS as a)( 2 O(3c C4t) a5d OROC CIT/+ Defendants- Appellees.

@acts:

The (unicipal <oard of 4rmoc Cit- passed a municipal ta6 ordinance imposing on an- and all productions of centrifugalsugar milled at the 4rmoc ugar Compan- 0nc. one percent per e6port sale to the U and other foreign countries. aidcompan- filed +efore the C@0 of )e-te a complaint against the Cit- of 4rmoc, its Treasurer, (unicipal <oard and (a-or,

alleging sasid ordinance is violative of the e9ual protection clause and the rule of uniformit- of ta6ation, among other things. 4rmoc ugar Compan- 0nc. &as the onl- sugar central in 4rmoc Cit- at the time.

0ssue:

34# the constitutional limits on the po&er of ta6ation, specificall- the 1PC and uniformit- of ta6ation, &ere infringed.

eld:

=es. Though 4rmoc ugar Compan- 0nc. is the onl- sugar central in the cit- of 4rmoc at the time, the classification, to +ereasona+le, should +e in terms applica+le to future conditions as &ell. aid ordinance shoouldnIt +e singular ande6clusive as to e6clude an- su+se9uentl- esta+lished sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff, for coverage of the ta6.

1PC applies onl- to persons or things identicall- situated and doesnIt +ar a reasona+le classificationof the su+ect of

legislation. A classification is reasona+le &here: 52 it is +ased on su+stantial distinctions &hich ma'e real differences7 /82these are germane to the purpose of the la&7 /!2 the classification applies not onl- to present conditions +ut also to futureconditions &hich are su+stantiall- identical to those of the present7 /%2 the classification applies onl- to those &ho +elongto the same class.

PEOPLE 6s. CA/AT

@ACT: Ca-at &as arrested of the crime under Act no. 5!D/ An act prohi+iting an- mem+ers of a non Christian tri+e to+u-, receive or possess a an- into6icating li9uor and sentence to pa- fift- /"F2 pesos or suffer su+sidiar- imprisonment incase of solvenc-. e &as caught in possession of one +ottle of A55 gin.

e contends that it is a violative of the due process of la&.

1): The C ruled that the said Act is constitutional, +ecause it meets the re9uirement of the re9uisite of classificationRe9uisite of classification:5. (ust rest an su+stantial distinction78. (ust +e germane to the purpose of the la&7!. (ust not +e limited to e6isting conditions7%. 0t must +e appl- e9uall- to all mem+ers of the same class,

PEOPLE VS 1ALOS1OS

Facts: The accusedappellant, Romeo Jalosos, is a fullfledged mem+er of Congress &ho is confined at the nationalpenitentiar- &hile his conviction for statutor- rape and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accusedappellantfiled a motion as'ing that he +e allo&ed to full- discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative

sessions and committee meetings despite his having +een convicted in the first instance of a non+aila+le offense on the+asis of popular sovereignt- and the need for his constituents to +e represented.

Issue: 3hether or not accusedappellant should +e allo&ed to discharge mandate as mem+er of ouse of Representatives

Held: 1lection is the e6pression of the sovereign po&er of the people. o&ever, inspite of its importance, the privilegesand rights arising from having +een elected ma- +e enlarged or restricted +- la&.

The immunit- from arrest or detention of enators and mem+ers of the ouse of Representatives arises from a provisionof the Constitution. The privilege has al&a-s +een granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an e6emption as aspecial privilege cannot +e e6tended +e-ond the ordinar- meaning of its terms. 0t ma- not +e e6tended +- intendment,implication or e9uita+le considerations.

The accusedappellant has not given an- reason &h- he should +e e6empted from the operation of ec. 55, Art. >0 of theConstitution. The mem+ers of Congress cannot compel a+sent mem+ers to attend sessions if the reason for the a+senceis a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman charged &ith a crime punisha+le +- imprisonment of more thansi6 -ears is not merel- authoriBed +- la&, it has constitutional foundations. To allo& accusedappellant to attendcongressional sessions and committee meetings for " da-s or more in a &ee' &ill virtuall- ma'e him a free man &ith allthe privileges appurtenant to his position. uch an a+errant situation not onl- elevates accusedappellantIs status to thatof a special class, it also &ould +e a moc'er- of the purposes of the correction s-stem.



People v. Mijano

GR No. 12911223 July 1999

Per Curiam

Accused Jimmy Mijano was

convicted by te lowe! cou!t o" te c!ime o" !ape o" "ive#yea!#old

$a%el Rami!e%& "o! wic te

penalty o" deat was 'iven.Mijano assails te deat penalty

"o! bein' violative o" te e(ual

p!otection clause& statin' tat itonly punises people li)e im

wo a!e uneducated and jobless.

*+N te deat penalty violates

te e(ual p!otection clause.

N,. -e deat penalty ma)es no

distinction. t applies to all pe!sons and to all classes o"

pe!sons/!ic o! poo!& educated

o! uneducated& !eli'ious o! non#!eli'ious. No pa!ticula! pe!son o!

classes o" pe!sons a!e identi"ied

by te law a'ainst wom tedeat penalty sall be e0clusively

imposed.

Obiter: Compassion for the poor

is an imperative of every humanbut only when the recipient is not

a rascal claiming an undeserved

privilege.

-e e(uality

'ua!antees isit is usually

all pe!sons be

tis 'ua!anteedealt wit as

te law& wic

pe!son di""e!ewat e is o!

Pless) 6. Fe(7us5+ *,# U.S. 8#$+ *, S. Ct. **#-+ &* L. Ed. "8, 9*-%,.

Facts

Pless- /P2 attempted to sit in an all&hite railroad car. After refusing to sit in the +lac' rail&a- carriage car, Pless- &as

arrested for violating an 5EDF )ouisiana statute that provided for segregated Gseparate +ut e9ualH railroad

accommodations. Those using facilities not designated for their race &ere criminall- lia+le under the statute.

At trial &ith Justice John . @erguson /2 presiding, Pless- &as found guilt- on the grounds that the la& &as a reasona+le

e6ercise of the stateIs police po&ers +ased upon custom, usage, and tradition in the state. Pless- filed a petition for &rits

of prohi+ition and certiorari in the upreme Court of )ouisiana against @erguson, asserting that segregation stigmatiBed

+lac's and stamped them &ith a +adge of inferiorit- in violation of the Thirteenth and @ourteenth amendments. The court

found for @erguson and the upreme Court granted cert.

Issue

• Can the states constitutionall- enact legislation re9uiring persons of different races to use Gseparate +ut e9ualH

segregated facilities

Hld457 a5d Rule 90(;5

• =es. The states can constitutionall- enact legislation re9uiring persons of different races to use Gseparate +ut

e9ualH segregated facilities.

T<4(tee5t< A3e5d3e5t 4ssue

The statute does not conflict &ith the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment a+olished slaver- and

involuntar- servitude, e6cept as a punishment for crime. laver- implies involuntar- servitude and a state of +ondage. The

Thirteenth Amendment ho&ever &as regarded as insufficient to protect former slaves from certain la&s &hich had +een

enacted in the south &hich imposed upon them onerous disa+ilities and +urdens and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of

life, li+ert- and propert- to such an e6tent that their freedom &as of little value7 and that the @ourteenth Amendment &as

devised to meet this e6igenc-.

Fu(tee5t< A3e5d3e5t Issue All persons +orn or naturaliBed in the United tates and su+ect to the urisdiction thereof are made citiBens of the United

tates and of the tate &herein the- reside, and the tates are for+idden from ma'ing or enforcing an- la& &hich shall

a+ridge the privileges or immunities of citiBens of the United tates, or shall deprive an- person of life, li+ert-, or propert-

&ithout due process of la&, or den- to an- person &ithin their urisdiction the e9ual protection of the la&s.

The proper construction of this amendment involves a 9uestion of e6clusive privileges rather than race. 0ts main purpose

&as to esta+lish the citiBenship of former slaves, to give definitions of citiBenship of the United tates and of the tates,

and to protect the privileges and immunities of citiBens of the United tates from hostile legislation of the states.

0t &as intended to enforce the a+solute e9ualit- of the t&o races +efore the la&, +ut it &as intended to a+olish distinctions

+ased upon color, or to enforce social e9ualit-, or a commingling of the t&o races upon terms unsatisfactor- to either.

)a&s permitting and even re9uiring their separation in places &here the- are lia+le to +e +rought into contact do notnecessaril- impl- the inferiorit- of either race. uch la&s have generall- +een recogniBed as &ithin the scope of the statesI

police po&ers. The most common instance involves the esta+lishment of separate schools, &hich has +een held to +e a

valid e6ercise of the legislative po&er even +- courts of tates &here the political rights of +lac's have +een longest and

most earnestl- enforced.

D4s=s4t45

Judgment for @erguson /Pless- loses2.

Re7e5ts 2 t<e U546e(s4t) 2 Cal42(54a 6. 0a>>e 9*%$-



Case ummar-

Allan <a''e filed suit after learning that minorit- candidates &ith lo&er 9ualifications had +een admitted to medical schoolunder a program that reserved spaces for GdisadvantagedH applicants. The California upreme Court ordered the school,the taterun Universit- of California, to admit <a''e. The universit- then appealed to the United tates upreme Court.

The Court;s ecision A splintered upreme Court affirmed the udgment ordering <a''e;s admission to the medical school of the Universit- of

California at avis and invalidating the school;s special admissions program. o&ever, the Court did not prohi+it theschool from considering race as a factor in future admissions decisions. Justice )e&is Po&ell, Jr., announced the Court;s udgment. @our ustices agreed &ith his conclusions as to <a''e individuall-, and four other ustices agreed &ith the rulingas to use of race information in the future.

Justice Po&ell &rote that Gthe guarantee of 19ual Protection cannot mean one thing &hen applied to one individual andsomething else &hen applied to a person of another color.H e did not, ho&ever, prohi+it schools from considering race asone factor in the admissions process.

Justice Thurgood (arshall argued that race could properl- +e considered in an affirmative action program, a polic- of ta'ing positive steps to remed- the effects of past discrimination. G0n light of the sorr- histor- of discrimination and itsdevastating impact on the lives of #egroes, +ringing the #egro into the mainstream of American life should +e a stateinterest of the highest order. To fail to do so is to ensure that America &ill forever remain a divided societ-. 0 do not +elievethat the @ourteenth Amendment re9uires us to accept that fate.H

(ore on the CaseThe legal impact of <a''e &as reduced +- the disagreement among the ustices. <ecause the Court had no singlemaorit- position, the case could not give clear guidance on the e6tent to &hich colleges could consider race as part of anaffirmative action program.

0n Te6as v. op&ood, 5DD, a federal appeals court found that a Universit- of Te6as affirmative action program violatedthe rights of &hite applicants. The la& school &as tr-ing to +oost enrollment of African Americans and (e6ican Americans.The court assumed that the <a''e decision &as no longer legall- sound, and e6plicitl- ruled that Gthe la& school ma- notuse race as a factor in la& school admissions.H The court continued: GA universit- ma- properl- favor one applicant over another +ecause ofK&hether an applicant;s parents attended college or the applicant;s economic and social +ac'ground.K<ut the 'e- is that race itself cannot +e ta'en into account.H The upreme Court refused to revie& the appeals courtdecision.

Affirmative action remains a controversial issue in California. 0n 5DD, voters passed the California Civil Rights 0nitiative,generall- 'no&n as GProposition 8FD,H &hich prohi+ited all government agencies and institutions from giving preferentialtreatment to individuals +ased on their race or gender. The upreme Court also refused to hear an appeal from a decisionupholding the constitutionalit- of the la&.

C464l R47<ts Cases*?% U.S. # 9*--# CaseU.. upreme CourtCivil Rights Cases, 5FD U.. ! /5EE!2Civil Rights Cases

u+mitted 4cto+er Term, 5EE8ecided 4cto+er 5th, 5EEE5FD U.. !-lla+us5. The 5st and 8d sections of the Civil Rights Act passed (arch 5st, 5E$, are unconstitutional enactments as applied tothe several tates, not +eing authoriBed either +- the L000th or L0>th Amendments of the Constitution.8. The L0>th Amendment is prohi+itor- upon the tates onl-, and the legislation authoriBed to +e adopted +- Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting &hich the tates are prohi+ited from ma'ing or enforcingcertain la&s, or doing certain acts, +ut is corrective legislation such as ma- +e necessar- or proper for counteracting andredressing the effect of such la&s or acts.Page 5FD U. . %The L000th Amendment relates onl- to slaver- and involuntar- servitude /&hich it a+olishes2, and, although, +- its refle6action, it esta+lishes universal freedom in the United tates, and Congress ma- pro+a+l- pass la&s directl- enforcing its

provisions, -et such legislative po&er e6tends onl- to the su+ect of slaver- and its incidents, and the denial of e9ualaccommodations in inns, pu+lic conve-ances, and places of pu+lic amusement /&hich is for+idden +- the sections in9uestion2, imposes no +adge of slaver- or involuntar- servitude upon the part- +ut at most, infringes rights &hich areprotected from tate aggression +- the L0>th Amendment.%. 3hether the accommodations and privileges sought to +e protected +- the 5st and 8d sections of the Civil Rights Actare or are not rights constitutionall- demanda+le, and if the- are, in &hat form the- are to +e protected, is not no&decided.". #or is it decided &hether the la&, as it stands, is operative in the Territories and istrict of Colum+ia, the decision onl-relating to its validit- as applied to the tates.. #or is it decided &hether Congress, under the commercial po&er, ma- or ma- not pass a la& securing to all personse9ual accommodations on lines of pu+lic conve-ance +et&een t&o or more tates.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/109/3/case.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/109/3/case.html



These cases &ere all founded on the first and second sections of the Act of Congress 'no&n as the Civil Rights Act,passed (arch 5st, 5E$", entitled ?An Act to protect all citiBens in their civil and legal rights.? 5E tat. !!". T&o of thecases, those against tanle- and #ichols, &ere indictments for den-ing to persons of color the accommodations andprivileges of an inn or hotel7 t&o of them, those against R-an and ingleton, &ere, one on information, the other anindictment, for den-ing to individuals the privileges and accommodations of a theatre, the information against R-an +eingfor refusing a colored person a seat in the dress circle of (aguire;s theatre in an @rancisco, and the indictment againstingleton &as for den-ing to another person, &hose color &as not stated, the full eno-ment of the accommodations of thetheatre 'no&n as the Mrand 4pera ouse in #e& =or',?said denial not +eing made for an- reasons +- la& applica+le to citiBens of ever- race and color, and regardless of an-previous condition of servitude.?The case of Ro+inson and &ife against the (emphis N Charleston R.R. Compan- &as an action +rought in the CircuitCourt of the United tates for the 3estern istrict of Tennessee to recover the penalt- of five hundred dollarsPage 5FD U. . "given +- the second section of the act, and the gravamen &as the refusal +- the conductor of the railroad compan- toallo& the &ife to ride in the ladies; car, for the reason, as stated in one of the counts, that she &as a person of Africandescent. The ur- rendered a verdict for the defendants in this case upon the merits, under a charge of the court to &hicha +ill of e6ceptions &as ta'en +- the plaintiffs. The case &as tried on the assumption +- +oth parties of the validit- of theact of Congress, and the principal point made +- the e6ceptions &as that the udge allo&ed evidence to go to the ur-tending to sho& that the conductor had reason to suspect that the plaintiff, the &ife, &as an improper person +ecause she&as in compan- &ith a -oung man &hom he supposed to +e a &hite man, and, on that account, inferred that there &assome improper connection +et&een them, and the udge charged the ur-, in su+stance, that, if this &as theconductor;s +ona fide reason for e6cluding the &oman from the car, the- might ta'e it into consideration on the 9uestion of the lia+ilit- of the compan-. The case &as +rought here +- &rit of error at the suit of the plaintiffs. The cases of tanle-,

#ichols, and ingleton came up on certificates of division of opinion +et&een the udges +elo& as to the constitutionalit-of the first and second sections of the act referred to, and the case of R-an on a &rit of error to the udgment of the CircuitCourt for the istrict of California sustaining a demurrer to the information.The tanle-, R-an, #ichols, and ingleton cases &ere su+mitted together +- the solicitor general at the last term of court,on the $th da- of #ovem+er, 5EE8. There &ere no appearances, and no +riefs filed for the defendants.The Ro+inson case &as su+mitted on the +riefs at the last term, on the Dth da- of arch, 5EE!.Page 5FD U. . Eisclaimer: 4fficial upreme Court case la& is onl- found in the print version of the United tates Reports. Justia case la&is provided for general informational purposes onl-, and ma- not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. 3e ma'e no &arranties or guarantees a+out the accurac-, completeness, or ade9uac- of the informationcontained on this site or information lin'ed to from this site. Please chec' official sources.

0(;5 6. 0a(d 2 Educat45 2 T=e>a

Citation. !%D U.. 8D% /5D""2.

<rief @act ummar-. After its decision in <ro&n v. <oard of 1ducation of Tope'a, the upreme Court of the United tates/upreme Court2 determines that the lo&er courts in &hich the cases originated &ere the proper venue for determiningho& to +est implement racial desegregation.

-nopsis of Rule of )a&. The lo&er courts in &hich the cases of <ro&n v. <oard of 1ducation of Tope'a first originated arethe proper venue for determining ho& to +est implement racial desegregation in light of varied school pro+lems anddifferent local conditions.

@acts. The upreme Court, after ruling that racial segregation in pu+lic schools violates the 19ual Protection Clause of the@ourteenth Amendment, determined that the lo&er courts in &hich the cases of <ro&n v. <oard of 1ducation of Tope'afirst originated &ould +e the proper venue in determining ho& to implement racial desegregation. The upreme Court

ac'no&ledged that these lo&er courts should structure this desegregation +ecause of varied local school pro+lems andlocal conditions. The upreme Court stated the lo&er courts &ould +e guided +- e9uita+le principles, recogniBing theneed for elimination of o+stacles in ma'ing the transition to desegregation.

0ssue. o& to implement the racial desegregation in pu+lic education in light of the decision in <ro&n v. <oard of1ducation of Tope'a.

eld. Remanded. The lo&er courts, &hich originall- heard these cases, &ill determine ho& to implement racialdesegregation in pu+lic schools &ith all deli+erate speed.

iscussion. 0n light of the ruling of <ro&n v. <oard of 1ducation of Tope'a, declaring segregation in pu+lic schoolsunconstitutional, the upreme Court remanded the cases +ac' to the lo&er courts to implement racial desegregation &ithall deli+erate speed.



0ll457 6. S<a(=e

<rief @act ummar-. The Petitioners, #egro minors /Petitioners2, allege the segregation in the pu+lic schools of theistrict of Colum+ia deprives them of ue Process of la& under the @ifth Amendment of the United tates Constitution/Constitution2.

-nopsis of Rule of )a&. Racial segregation in pu+lic schools is a denial of the due process of la& guaranteed +- the @ifth Amendment of the Constitution.

@acts. The Petitioners, &ere denied admission to a pu+lic school in the istrict of Colum+ia +ased solel- on their race.The Petitioners filed suit in the istrict Court see'ing aid in admission. The istrict court dismissed the complaint. Theupreme Court of the United tates /upreme Court2 granted certiorari +efore the udgment of the Court of Appeals+ecause of the importance of the constitutional 9uestion presented. The istrict of Colum+ia is governed +- federal la&,not state la& therefore the 5%amendment of the Constitution does not govern the istrict of Colum+ia. 0nstead thePetitioners argue that segregation of pu+lic school children violates the ue Process Clause of the @ifth Amendment.

0ssue. 3hether the ue Process Clause of the @ifth Amendment of the Constitution is violated +- the segregation of pu+licschool children in the istrict of Colum+ia

eld. =es, the racial segregation in the pu+lic schools of the istrict of Colum+ia is a denial of the ue Process Clause ofthe @ifth Amendment.

iscussion. The istrict of Colum+ia is governed +- federal la& rather than state la&. Thus, the 19ual Protection Clause

of the @ourteenth amendment is not applica+le. The upreme Court found in this case that segregation of pu+lic schoolchildren is also unconstitutional +ased on federal la&s +ecause personal li+erties protected +- the ue Process Clause ofthe @ifth Amendment &ere violated.

L6457 6. V4(7454a

@acts of the case0n 5D"E, t&o residents of >irginia, (ildred Jeter, a +lac' &oman, and Richard )oving, a &hite man, &ere married in theistrict of Colum+ia. The )ovings returned to >irginia shortl- thereafter. The couple &as then charged &ith violating thestate;s antimiscegenation statute, &hich +anned interracial marriages. The )ovings &ere found guilt- and sentenced to a-ear in ail /the trial udge agreed to suspend the sentence if the )ovings &ould leave >irginia and not return for 8" -ears2.

Ouestion

id >irginia;s antimiscegenation la& violate the 19ual Protection Clause of the @ourteenth Amendment

=es. 0n a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions dra&n according to race &ere generall- ?odious to a freepeople? and &ere su+ect to ?the most rigid scrutin-? under the 19ual Protection Clause. The >irginia la&, the Court found,had no legitimate purpose ?independent of invidious racial discrimination.? The Court reected the state;s argument thatthe statute &as legitimate +ecause it applied e9uall- to +oth +lac's and &hites and found that racial classifications &erenot su+ect to a ?rational purpose? test under the @ourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the >irginia la&violated the ue Process Clause of the @ourteenth Amendment. ?Under our Constitution,? &rote Chief Justice 1arl3arren, ?the freedom to marr-, or not marr-, a person of another race resides &ith the individual, and cannot +e infringed+- the tate.?

hapiro v. Thompson

<rief @act ummar-. 3elfare applicants &ere denied assistance +ecause the- resided in the istrict of Colum+ia for lessthan one -ear prior to filing their application for assistance.

-nopsis of Rule of )a&. en-ing &elfare assistance to need- families &ho do not meet a residenc- re9uirement, +ut&ould other&ise 9ualif- is unconstitutional unless the denial is supported +- a compelling interest.

@acts. Appeals from a decision of a threeudge istrict Court held unconstitutional tate or istrict of Colum+ia statutor-provisions, &hich denies &elfare assistance to residents of the tate or istrict &ho have not resided &ithin their

urisdictions for at least one -ear immediatel- preceding their applications for such assistance.

0ssue. 3hether the imposition of a one-ear residenc- re9uirement on &elfare assistant applicants is unconstitutional.

eld. Justice 3illiam <rennan /J. <rennan2. =es. The one-ear residenc- re9uirement is unconstitutional +ecause itdiscriminates against Gneed . . . familiesH &ho have not met the residenc- re9uirement even though the status of these

families is no different than families meeting the residenc- re9uirement. The one-ear residenc- re9uirement is notsupported +- a compelling state interest. The statutor- provisions violate the constitutional right to travel +ecause it hasthe effect of Ginhi+iting migration +- need- persons into the tate.H The residenc- re9uirement also violates the ueProcess Clause of the @ifth Amendment +ecause the re9uirement denies Gpu+lic assistance to poor persons other&iseeligi+le solel- on the ground that the- have not +een residents of the stateQ for one -ear at the time their applications arefiled.H The udgment is affirmed.

issent. The dissenting opinions are as follo&s:Chief Justice 1arl 3arren /J. 3arren2. Congress does not have the po&er to act under one of its enumerated po&ers toimpose minimal nation&ide residenc- re9uirements or authoriBe the tates to do so.Justice John arlan /J. arlan2. The strict scrutin- standard of revie& should not appl- to this t-pe of case. The standardshould +e reserved for those cases dealing &ith racial classifications or to other classifications traditionall- recogniBed +-



the upreme Court of the United tates /upreme Court2. The Court could have upheld the residenc- re9uirement if itapplied its GtraditionalH and GproperH approach to e9ual protection &here+- this case &ould onl- need +e e6amined underthe rational +asis test.Concurrence. Justice Potter te&ard /J. te&art2. The GCourt simpl- recogniBes, as it must, an esta+lished constitutionalright, the right to travel,Q and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands . . . .H

iscussion. Although this case e6tended the strict scrutin- standard of revie& to classifications directl- impacting the rightto travel, it did not provide clear guidance as to &hen in these cases strict scrutin- should +e applied or to &hat e6tent itshould appl- &hen the right to travel is affected.

Documents

Equal Protection Case Digest.docx