Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Con Law (Equal Protection Clause (discrim) (De Jure (Laws that are…

- - - - need more than awareness must show intent (McCleskey)
        
        Circumstances may indicate intent (Arlington Heights)
        
        latter comments from legislators
        
        changing time of meeting to exclude people
  - - - apply rational basis
    - - need more than awareness must show intent (McCleskey?
  - - - history
        
        Bakke
        
        Croson
      - why?
        
        to protect politically powerless minorites
    - - institutions are seeking to remedy own past segregation (institutional or identifiable or intention discrim)
        
        However not societal discrimination
        
        if achieved unitary, no current interest
      - states are trying to achieve measure of diversity in "higher" education"
    - - consider other less burdensome alternatives
        
        quotas are no but targeted range is fine (critical mass)
- - - - Carbone v. Town of Clarkson
      - United Haulers
    - - South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
    - - Western & Southern Life Insurance (1981)
      - Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin (1946)
  - - - Pike v. Bruce Church
    - - Hunt v. Apple Commission
    - - Philadelphia v. N.J.
    - - Dean Milk v. Madison
      - Maine v. Taylor
- - - - Marsh v Alabama (1964)
      - Logan Valley (1968)
      - Lloyd v Tanner (1972)
      - Hudgens (1976)
- - - - Toomer v. Witsell (1948)
      - United Building Trades v. Camden (1984)
      - Baldwin v. Montana (1978)
      - N.H. v. Piper (1985)