Do the United States Supreme Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Frontiero v. Richardson both relate to preventing discrimination?
47a35ad0c2ae497f6e29a92d5797d4a9
Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke".
dbf892a701b4197725c892615eb6862a
Frontiero v. Richardson Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex.
f1f401251df00d960ab8bdbabf4cbde1
Cutter v. Wilkinson Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), facilities that accept federal funds cannot deny prisoners accommodations that are necessary to engage in activities for the practice of their own religious beliefs.
ff31622b97c66a088c52c7fbb5b638a7
Employment discrimination law in the United States Employment discrimination law in the United States
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.
4aaa37a5fb360f9a1613382574d02767
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( /12101 § 12101  ) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.
1df22aa29924023ae1e0f19f19b2d3ae
Separate Car Act The Withdraw Car Act (Act 111) was a law passed by the Louisiana State Legislature in 1890 which required "equal, but separate" train car accommodations for Blacks and Whites. An unsuccessful challenge to this law culminated in an 1896 United States Supreme Court decision ("Plessy v. Ferguson"), which upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
d3571e76816750cad5c4e132f03a1c51
Civil Rights Act of 1991 The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award.
5047f615f9ddf5d8d911a5bc92f80afd
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991) , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. "Edmonson" extended the court's similar decision in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in "Bolling v. Sharpe" (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.
f7ac5112ad62e5d0337bc0f0ce7a1ca9
Washington State Law Against Discrimination The Washington State Law Against Discrimination (also known as WLAD) is a set of laws (specifically, RCW 49.60) designed to protect individuals in the U.S. state of Washington from discrimination.
b84c14897e4c060ad41e56b35377e0a1
Brown v. Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
631b13e544028c588bb63d547262ee44
United States v. American Library Ass'n United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.
632af477305002520b07ab61bc3ea8f0
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) , is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
4be50154310aad6c7c5d0fb9488e5fde
Hodgson v. Bowerbank Hodgson and Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. 303 (1809) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The invalidated portion conferred federal courts jurisdiction to try cases between aliens.
41879b18c01cd85bf74c4c41a50bd125
Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal "defendant" cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991) that the "Batson" prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process.
8198559a8eaedf6380ee99648125d1ac
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case which began on April 30, 1953 over the validity of the local Washington Acts of 1872 and 1873. The Acts prohibited segregation in public places within the District. With the court’s support, the legal ramifications of the 1872 and 1873 Acts could once again be enforced. The case transpired during growing racial tension in the nation’s capital. Throughout Washington, the black community had grown tired of unfair treatment regarding housing, businesses, and education. But, change came soon enough through the courts. On June 8, 1953, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the segregating policies practiced by Thompson’s Cafeteria were illegal, marking a huge victory for the national black community.
f534508eb7e0f945ed5d9cac4a23a5bc
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), involved a request to stop denying tribal membership to those children born to female (not male) tribal members who married outside of the tribe. The mother who made the case pleaded that the discrimination against her child was solely based on sex, which violated the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The courts decided that "tribal common-law sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the tribe." The decision ultimately strengthened tribal self-determination by further providing that generally, the federal government played no enforcement role over the tribal governments.
f502d008cdc4966efd8204a339e7a758
United States v. Richardson United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.
da95ef731703c67c8abb3d592786f2d2
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 US 552 (1938) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices.
81eddb7c1e15c871a2c7448dbdebcf71
United States v. Butler United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.