My Sample Case Brief
Citation: Brown v. Board of Edu. Of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Parties: The board of education of Topeka was the defendant, and Brown representing the African American school children was the Plaintiff.
Theories: The Plaintiff claimed that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant argued that the precedent “separate but equal” had already been established in Plessy. V. Ferguson 1896.
Key facts: Because of segregation, African American schools were not equal to the white schools. African American children tried to attend the all white school. These students were not permitted to attend this school, so they then filed a lawsuit.
Prior proceedings: The case started out as a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education saying that the schools in Topeka were actually equal. The case then moved to the Supreme Court. They originally heard the case in the spring of 1953, but they could not make a decision, so they reheard the case in fall of 1953.
Issues: May public schools segregate students on the subject of race under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Holdings: No
Reasoning: Whenever you separate or segregate, it cannot be equal even if everything else is equal. Thus, segregation alone is unequal so it violates the 14th amendment. They believed that in the field of public education, the phrase “separate but equal” does not belong.
Disposition: We therefor reversed and remanded the previous ruling.
Citation: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Parties: Richard Loving and Mildred Dolores Jeter were the Plaintiffs, and the state of Virginia was the defendant.
Theories: The Plaintiffs claimed that it was unconstitutional to prohibit inter-racial marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant argued that the Loving’s marriage violated the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The defendant also claimed they had precedent in Pace v. Alabama (1883).
Key Facts: Mildred was an African American woman who became pregnant by Richard Loving, a white man. They then traveled to Washington D.C. to get married. After this marriage, they returned to Virginia and one night the police raided their house and found the Lovings in bed together. They were sentenced to a year in prison and they also were no longer allowed to live in or visit Virginia together for the next twenty-five years.
Prior Proceedings: In 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a motion for the Lovings in the state trial court. This motion did not receive a prompt decision, so in October of 1964, the Lovings brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This court decided to allow the Lovings to present their claim to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice, Carrico, sided with Virginia. The Lovings then seceded to appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Issues: May a state prevent marriages between people of different race classifications under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holdings: No
Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided that Virginia’s anti-mixed race marriage law violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They thought that marriage was one of the basic civil rights of man, so to deny this fundamental freedom on the basis of race was wrong. They believed that anti-miscegenation laws were based on racial animus and that these laws did not have a sound legal basis.
Disposition: We therefore reversed and remanded the previous ruling.
Citation: Brown v. Board of Edu. Of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Parties: The board of education of Topeka was the defendant, and Brown representing the African American school children was the Plaintiff.
Theories: The Plaintiff claimed that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant argued that the precedent “separate but equal” had already been established in Plessy. V. Ferguson 1896.
Key facts: Because of segregation, African American schools were not equal to the white schools. African American children tried to attend the all white school. These students were not permitted to attend this school, so they then filed a lawsuit.
Prior proceedings: The case started out as a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education saying that the schools in Topeka were actually equal. The case then moved to the Supreme Court. They originally heard the case in the spring of 1953, but they could not make a decision, so they reheard the case in fall of 1953.
Issues: May public schools segregate students on the subject of race under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
Holdings: No
Reasoning: Whenever you separate or segregate, it cannot be equal even if everything else is equal. Thus, segregation alone is unequal so it violates the 14th amendment. They believed that in the field of public education, the phrase “separate but equal” does not belong.
Disposition: We therefor reversed and remanded the previous ruling.
Citation: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Parties: Richard Loving and Mildred Dolores Jeter were the Plaintiffs, and the state of Virginia was the defendant.
Theories: The Plaintiffs claimed that it was unconstitutional to prohibit inter-racial marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant argued that the Loving’s marriage violated the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The defendant also claimed they had precedent in Pace v. Alabama (1883).
Key Facts: Mildred was an African American woman who became pregnant by Richard Loving, a white man. They then traveled to Washington D.C. to get married. After this marriage, they returned to Virginia and one night the police raided their house and found the Lovings in bed together. They were sentenced to a year in prison and they also were no longer allowed to live in or visit Virginia together for the next twenty-five years.
Prior Proceedings: In 1963, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a motion for the Lovings in the state trial court. This motion did not receive a prompt decision, so in October of 1964, the Lovings brought a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This court decided to allow the Lovings to present their claim to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Virginia Supreme Court Justice, Carrico, sided with Virginia. The Lovings then seceded to appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Issues: May a state prevent marriages between people of different race classifications under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holdings: No
Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided that Virginia’s anti-mixed race marriage law violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They thought that marriage was one of the basic civil rights of man, so to deny this fundamental freedom on the basis of race was wrong. They believed that anti-miscegenation laws were based on racial animus and that these laws did not have a sound legal basis.
Disposition: We therefore reversed and remanded the previous ruling.