Brown V. Board of Education (1954): 14th Amendment, Equal Protection

• After chipping away at the foundations of Plessy v. Ferguson, a unanimous court resolved that “SEPARATE BUT EQUAL” doctrine has no place in the field of education. In deciding that the history of the 14^th Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education, the court held that the use of race to segregate white and black children in the public schools is a denial to black children of the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment. Brown was prohibited from attending public school in Topeka, Kansas

• Majority: WARREN: In approaching the problem of school segregation “we can not turn the clock back to 1868 when the 14^th Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. Segregation generated a feeling of inferiority among black children: “Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy, this finding of inequality is amply supported by modern authority.”

• In Brown II, (1955) the Court announced guidelines for implementing desegregation. The Court largely deferred to local school authorities, leaving the Federal courts to determine only if the schools were acting in “good faith”. Obstruction and procrastination was caused by phrases such as: “practical flexibility”, “as soon as practicable”, “a prompt reasonable response”, and “all deliberate speed”.

Bolling V. Sharpe (1954): 5th Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process

• In Brown, the Supreme Court struck down “separate but equal” public schools in the states, relying on the EQUAL PROTECTION clause of 14^th A. The District of Columbia is not subject to the 14^th A., the Court could evoke the 5^th A., but the 5^th lacks an “EQUAL PROTECTION” clause. Politically, the Court could not invalidate segregated schools in the states and allow them to operate in D.C.

• Majority: WARREN: The court finessed the problem by holding that racial segregation in D.C. schools denied black children DUE PROCESS of law under the 5^th A. The concepts of EQUAL PROTECTION and DUE PROCESS, “both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive.”

Marbury V. Madison (1803): Judicial Review, Interpret Constitution

• Marbury and others were nominated by President Adams to be justices of the peace in D.C. The Senate confirmed their names. Adams signed the commissions and the seal was affixed, but the commissions were not delivered. When Jefferson took office, he ordered for commissions not to be delivered. It was a tough situation, if the court ruled against Jefferson, the decision would have been ignored, and the power and prestige of the Court would suffer greatly. Marshall took a short term loss for a long term victory

• Majority: MARSHALL: The opinion acknowledged the merits of Marbury’s case but denied to that the Court had power to issue a mandamus. Through a strained reading, Marshall concluded that Section 13 expanded the original jurisdiction of the Court, and thereby violated Article III of the Constitution. Congress can alter the boundaries of only appellate jurisdiction. Marshall claimed that the power of CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION was vested in judiciary.