Supreme Court Case Analysis: Bakke and Parents Against Bussing Schoolchildren Totally, Study notes of Law

Download Supreme Court Case Analysis: Bakke and Parents Against Bussing Schoolchildren Totally and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Model Lesson Plan: The Supreme Court & Constitutional Interpretation I. Goals a. Students will be familiar with the structure of the federal government’s judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court. b. Students will have a basic understanding of the main competing styles of judicial interpretation at the Supreme Court level. II. Objectives a. Students will be able to understand the role that federal courts and federal judges play in the government. b. Students will begin to predict legal outcomes based on precedent and judicial interpretation. III. Classroom Methods a. Group Brainstorming i. [Ideally, the students will have received a lesson on the federal system of government and the distinction between the federal court system and the state/local court system.] ii. What happens when a party loses a case? 1. The right of appeal 2. The government does not have the right to appeal an acquittal in a criminal prosecution. iii. Why should the losing party get another chance? 1. Error in procedure? a. Extreme example: jury was bribed. 2. Error of Law? a. Judge made an error in interpreting the law. b. Judge did not properly instruct the jury as to the law. b. Lecture i. Show PowerPoint slide with the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. 1. Note: the federal circuit map is in the street law textbook. ii. Explain the concepts of appeal as of right and discretionary review. 1. The losing party at the district court level generally may appeal as of right to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the district court is located. iii. The U.S. Supreme Court is a court of discretionary review. 1. It hears only (more or less) the cases that it wants to hear. a. Of the roughly 7,000 cert petitions it receives each year, the Supreme Court requests briefing and grants oral argument only in around 100. iv. The U.S. Supreme Court will grant review 1. to resolve a conflict among multiple federal circuits in the interpretation of federal law. 2. to resolve an important question of federal law. Docsity.com 2 3. to review a decision of a lower court (U.S. District, U.S. Court of Appeals, or state court of last resort) that is in conflict with Supreme Court precedent. v. There are two broad categories of justices on the Supreme Court who have common approaches to constitutional interpretation [explain that these are simplifications and that legal scholars probably would argue that these categories do not tell the whole story] 1. Conservative: Strict constructionist – the text of the Constitution and federal laws mean exactly what they say—no more and no less. Hold federalist principles. 2. Liberal: you have to look beyond the plain words and get to the policies behind the text of the Constitution and federal laws, especially in the context of individual rights. The federal government is not as constrained by federalism as the conservatives believe. c. Triad Exercise: Arguing from Precedent - Affirmative Action Case Study (25 minutes) i. Begin with a disclaimer that we will be talking about an issue, affirmative action, that is extremely controversial and that reasonable people can and do disagree over. 1. Show the students the text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 2. Have the students read summaries of the Bakke and Grutter cases. 3. Show the students the facts of the Quahog (aka Seattle) Public Schools case. Ask them to predict how the Supreme Court will decide the case. Divide the class into groups of three, with “ones” arguing for the parents, “twos” arguing for the school district, and “threes” deciding the case as Supreme Court justices. 4. Poll the justices to see how they decided the case. IV. Evaluation a. Participation in group brainstorming b. Participation in the Triad Exercise c. Homework Assignment V. Assignment a. Write a one and a half to two page paper summarizing the best arguments for and against the legality of the school district case that is discussed in the classroom triad exercise. Write about which position you think is the correct one (which position do you agree with) and why. Finally, write how you think the U.S. Supreme Court would decide the case. Support your conclusion based on the constitutional interpretation methods of the current Supreme Court justices. Docsity.com 5 student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use." Justice O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary in order to promote diversity. The opinion implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented. The opinion read, "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." The phrase "25 years from now" was echoed by Justice Thomas in his dissent. Parents Against Bussing Schoolchildren Totally v. City of Quahog, RI Facts of the Case The Quahog School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points from those of Quahog's total student population (approximately 40% white and 60% non-white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. A non-profit group, Parents Against Bussing Schoolchildren Totally (PABST), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Rhode Island state law. A federal District Court dismissed the suit, upholding the tiebreaker. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding the tiebreaker was unconstitutional (that it violated the Equal Protection Clause). Under the Supreme Court's precedents on racial classification in higher education (college and graduate school), Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (undergraduate admissions), race- based classifications must be directed toward a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" to that interest. Applying these precedents to K-12 education, the First Circuit Court found that the tiebreaker scheme was not narrowly tailored. The District then petitioned for an "en banc" ruling by a panel of First Circuit judges. The en banc panel came to the opposite conclusion and upheld the tiebreaker. The majority ruled that the District had a compelling interest in maintaining racial diversity. Applying a test from Grutter, the Circuit Court also ruled that the tiebreaker plan was narrowly tailored, because 1) the District did not employ quotas, 2) the District had considered race-neutral alternatives, 3) the plan caused no undue harm to races, and 4) the plan had an ending point. Docsity.com 6 Problem: Students assigned Role #1: You represent PABST. Argue that the Quahog system violates the Equal Protection Clause by improperly considering race in high school admissions. Support your argument based on the rulings in Bakke and Grutter. Students assigned Role #2: You represent the Quahog School District. Argue that the Quahog system does not violation the Equal Protection Clause. Support your argument based on the rulings in Bakke and Grutter. Students assigned Role #3: You are a Supreme Court justice. Consider the arguments of both parties and reach a decision as to whether or not the Quahog system violates Equal Protection. Be prepared to defend your decision to your fellow justices. Docsity.com