Which Supreme Court case dealt with racial covenants on real estate, Medellín v. Texas or Shelley v. Kraemer?
64bd7e88f71dfd1189e1b9f7cf7486b6
Medellín v. Texas Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) , is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is "self-executing." Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.
26433332f7e06446dfbb51dea078a719
Shelley v. Kraemer Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held that courts could not enforce racial covenants on real estate.
3b5a6711d3312ad44e2af2f67324dd14
Vance v. Terrazas Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980) was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship. The Supreme Court overturned portions of an act of Congress which had listed various actions and had said that the performance of any of these actions could be taken as conclusive, irrebuttable proof of intent to give up U.S. citizenship. However, the Court ruled that a person's intent to give up citizenship could be established through a standard of preponderance of evidence (i.e., more likely than not) — rejecting an argument that intent to relinquish citizenship could only be found on the basis of clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence.
d61b5f6d4158812158a0a74128267b03
Runyon v. McCrary Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court, which held that federal law prohibited private schools from discriminating on the basis of race. Dissenting Justice Byron White argued that the legislative history of  /1981 § 1981  (popularly known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act") indicated that the Act was not designed to prohibit private racial discrimination, but only state-sponsored racial discrimination (as had been held in the "Civil Rights Cases" of 1883).
77255c07f00dc4f08aed44452c8c0d17
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal law.
24cea91f8a89752bda9654018038aace
Niemotko v. Maryland Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the city of Havre de Grace, Maryland had violated the free exercise of Niemotko's religion by not issuing a permit for him and his religious group (the Jehovah's Witnesses) to meet in a public park when other religious and civic groups had been given permits for holding their meetings there.
cc760d205cdf4fe6774354c9ce99b488
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children, and a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court regardless of the location of birth of the child if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation.
dae77448e1257dd1a6624bd21b3e3f1b
Shelley House (St. Louis, Missouri) The Shelley House is a historic house at 4600 Labadie Avenue in St. Louis, Missouri. Built in 1906, this duplex was the focus of the 1948 United States Supreme Court case "Shelley v. Kraemer", which ruled that judicial enforcement by state courts of racially restrictive covenants violated the Constitution. The house was designated a National Historic Landmark on December 14, 1990.
7dec3a68aa0d1347f7c0fc96c613bd22
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "<nowiki>[</nowiki> /1982 § 1982  <nowiki>]</nowiki> bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."
6ff5010e970a84ea7feed4d046a02073
City of Boerne v. Flores City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) , was a US Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
533bf81861a16c123243acb2f6c13876
Hansberry v. Lee Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) , is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that "res judicata" may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class. The defense in the present case argued that Carl Augustus Hansberry (father of Lorraine Hansberry) could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit.
79261b9abed83396c48e3db27ff77189
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 414 U.S. 441 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that invalidated Indiana's loyalty oath requirement.
6fac1794cbb28b791d591ffea7cdc05a
E. D. Nixon Edgar Daniel Nixon (July 12, 1899 – February 25, 1987), known as E. D. Nixon, was an African-American civil rights leader and union organizer in Alabama who played a crucial role in organizing the landmark Montgomery Bus Boycott there in 1955. The boycott highlighted the issues of segregation in the South, was upheld for more than a year by black residents, and nearly brought the city-owned bus system to bankruptcy. It ended in December 1956, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in the related case, "Browder v. Gayle" (1956), that the local and state laws were unconstitutional, and ordered the state to end bus segregation.
e5698d101fe2612a2ea425019c5b4512
Williams v. Lee Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.
0e8d43f7ab2b5599649cbae9aa585c39
Silverman v. Campbell Silverman v. Campbell was a South Carolina Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of a provision in the South Carolina Constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector.
b3cb0f8354714f16fd636f30067ddbff
In re Ross In re Ross or Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 21, 1891. It dealt with the application of US law by United States consular courts over foreign sailors on US-flagged ships in countries where the United States exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
46b8898a4d9bdd491f997933a277d3f9
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes was the first test of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a United States federal law.
36481c245ef8ed56c08cb0e92ad56542
Bradwell v. Illinois Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.
4110b274d344aca608efb0a31a417e39
Thurgood Marshall College Thurgood Marshall College (TMC) is one of the six undergraduate colleges at the University of California San Diego. The college, named after Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and lawyer for the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, emphasizes "scholarship, social responsibility and the belief that a liberal arts education must include an understanding of [one's] role in society." Marshall College's general education requirements emphasize this culture of community involvement and multiculturalism; accordingly Marshall houses the minors in Public Service and Film Studies for the campus. Significant academic programs and departments have come out of the college over many decades: Communication, Ethnic Studies, Third World Studies, African American Studies, Urban Studies & Planning, and Education Studies.
dd2628d0db1ad8785c4fd1cc476e372f
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in a land dispute, 25 U.S.C. § 194 applied only to individuals and not a state, that federal law governed the tribe's right to possession, but that state law was to be used in determining how that applied to the natural movement of a river's boundaries.
1efaf11c1640bebdd75598fa88da4301
Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.