EUGENIA LANGANEUGENIA LANGANMATER ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOLMATER ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOLHIALEAH GARDENS, FLORIDAHIALEAH GARDENS, FLORIDA

THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (1873) (1873)

CHIEF JUSTICE: SALMON CHASE (APPOINTED CHIEF JUSTICE: SALMON CHASE (APPOINTED BY LINCOLN)BY LINCOLN)

THE CHASE COURT IN 1869 THE CHASE COURT IN 1869 FIRST PHOTO EVER OF SUPREME FIRST PHOTO EVER OF SUPREME COURT (BY MATTHEW BRADY)COURT (BY MATTHEW BRADY)

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND: :

NOT IMPORTANT – BUT LOUISIANA PASSED NOT IMPORTANT – BUT LOUISIANA PASSED LAW TAKING OVER THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE LAW TAKING OVER THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE INDUSTRY IN NEW ORLEANS (HEALTH INDUSTRY IN NEW ORLEANS (HEALTH REGULATION – WANTED TO GET ALL REGULATION – WANTED TO GET ALL SLAUGHTERHOUSES OUT OF THE CITY (THEY SLAUGHTERHOUSES OUT OF THE CITY (THEY STINK, DRAW RODENTS, ETC.)STINK, DRAW RODENTS, ETC.)

BUTCHERS ASSOCIATION SUED UNDER BUTCHERS ASSOCIATION SUED UNDER PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF 14PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF 14THTH AMENDMENT (STATES CANNOT ABRIDGE AMENDMENT (STATES CANNOT ABRIDGE "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" OF CITIZENS OF "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" OF CITIZENS OF U.S.)U.S.)

ISSUE: DID THE PRIVILEGES OR ISSUE: DID THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE PROTECT THE BUTCHERS' IMMUNITIES CLAUSE PROTECT THE BUTCHERS' "PRIVILEGE" TO DO BUSINESS?"PRIVILEGE" TO DO BUSINESS?

COURT DECISIONCOURT DECISION: NO.: NO.

P OR I CLAUSE PROTECTS ONLY RIGHTS P OR I CLAUSE PROTECTS ONLY RIGHTS CREATED BY THE U.S. – NOT "CIVIL RIGHTS" CREATED BY THE U.S. – NOT "CIVIL RIGHTS" WHICH THE COURT SAID WERE CREATED BY WHICH THE COURT SAID WERE CREATED BY STATE LAW OR NATURAL LAW PRE-DATING STATE LAW OR NATURAL LAW PRE-DATING THE CONSTITUTIONTHE CONSTITUTION

LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCELEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE::

THE FRAMERS OF THE 14THE FRAMERS OF THE 14THTH AMENDMENT AMENDMENT INTENDED THE P & I CLAUSE TO APPLY THE INTENDED THE P & I CLAUSE TO APPLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES – ESPECIALLY BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES – ESPECIALLY THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS MADE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS MADE U.S. CITIZENS BY THE 14U.S. CITIZENS BY THE 14THTH AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT. ALL ALL OF THE RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE OF THE RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT PREDATE THE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT PREDATE THE CONSTITUTION. CONSTITUTION.

UNDER THE DECISION IN UNDER THE DECISION IN THE SLAUGHTER-THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASESHOUSE CASES, THE P & I CLAUSE IS VIRTUALLY , THE P & I CLAUSE IS VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS – IT PROTECTS ONLY THINGS LIKE MEANINGLESS – IT PROTECTS ONLY THINGS LIKE THE RIGHT TO USE NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS, THE RIGHT TO USE NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS, USE ATHE PORTS, ETC. USE ATHE PORTS, ETC. P & I CLAUSE DID NOT P & I CLAUSE DID NOT PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS OF BLACK PEOPLE – OR PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS OF BLACK PEOPLE – OR ANYONE ELSE!ANYONE ELSE!

ALL LEGALS SCHOLARS AND ALL LATER ALL LEGALS SCHOLARS AND ALL LATER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAVE AGREED THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAVE AGREED THE DECISION IS WRONG. DECISION IS WRONG. BUT IT'S A PRECEDENT BUT IT'S A PRECEDENT AND IT IS STILL THE LAW!AND IT IS STILL THE LAW!

EXAMPLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T EXAMPLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T CREATE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH CREATE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH – IT SAYS CONGRESS CANNOT ABRIDGE – IT SAYS CONGRESS CANNOT ABRIDGE "THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.""THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH."

THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASESTHE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES (1883) (1883)

CHIEF JUSTICE: MORRISON CHIEF JUSTICE: MORRISON WAITE (APPOINTED BY GRANT, WAITE (APPOINTED BY GRANT, BUT ACTUALLY A GOOD BUT ACTUALLY A GOOD JUSTICE!)JUSTICE!)

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 MADE IT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR "PUBLIC ILLEGAL FOR "PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS"(HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, ACCOMMODATIONS"(HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, RAILROADS, ETC.) TO REFUSE TO SERVE RAILROADS, ETC.) TO REFUSE TO SERVE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE (INTENDED TO PROTECT FREEDMEN IN SOUTH (INTENDED TO PROTECT FREEDMEN IN SOUTH FROM DISCRIMINATION). FROM DISCRIMINATION).

FIVE BLACK PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH SUED FIVE BLACK PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH SUED HOTELS. RESTAURANTS, TRANSIT COMPANIES HOTELS. RESTAURANTS, TRANSIT COMPANIES FOR REFUSING TO SERVE THEM = THE CIVIL FOR REFUSING TO SERVE THEM = THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES CONSOLIDATED IN SUPREME RIGHTS CASES CONSOLIDATED IN SUPREME COURTCOURT

ISSUEISSUE: DID THE 14: DID THE 14THTH AMENDMENT EQUAL AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE GIVE CONGRESS POWER PROTECTION CLAUSE GIVE CONGRESS POWER TO BAN PRIVATE BUSINESSES FROM TO BAN PRIVATE BUSINESSES FROM DISCRIMINATING?DISCRIMINATING?

COURT DECISIONCOURT DECISION: :

NO. THE CLAUSE SAYS ONLY THAT NO. THE CLAUSE SAYS ONLY THAT STATES STATES CANNOT DENY PEOPLE EQUAL PROTECTION OF CANNOT DENY PEOPLE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS – SO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS THE LAWS – SO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALUNCONSTITUTIONAL

THE DISSENT:THE DISSENT:

JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN DISSENTEDDISSENTED

HARLAN DISSENTED HARLAN DISSENTED FROM ALMOST EVERY FROM ALMOST EVERY RIGHT-WING DECISION RIGHT-WING DECISION OF THE COURT (AND OF THE COURT (AND THE COURT WAS VERY THE COURT WAS VERY RIGHT-WING IN THE RIGHT-WING IN THE LATE 19LATE 19THTH – EARLY – EARLY 2OTH CENTURIES)2OTH CENTURIES)

HE NOTED 14HE NOTED 14THTH AMENDMENT WAS AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE FREED SLAVES EQUAL INTENDED TO GIVE FREED SLAVES EQUAL RIGHTS (BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!)RIGHTS (BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!)

LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCELEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE::

CONGRESS BACKED OFF – NO MORE CIVIL CONGRESS BACKED OFF – NO MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS UNTIL 1964RIGHTS ACTS UNTIL 1964

AFRICAN-AMERICANS COULD NOT EAT AT AFRICAN-AMERICANS COULD NOT EAT AT WHITE RESTAURANTS, STAY IN WHITE WHITE RESTAURANTS, STAY IN WHITE HOTELS UNTIL 1864 – VERY DIFFICULT FOR HOTELS UNTIL 1864 – VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO TRAVEL! (JEWS, OTHER THEM TO TRAVEL! (JEWS, OTHER MINORITIES ALSO)MINORITIES ALSO)

WHILE THE 14WHILE THE 14THTH AMENDMENT ALONE AMENDMENT ALONE DOESN'T GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO DOESN'T GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE PRIVATE BUSINESSES (IT DOES REGULATE PRIVATE BUSINESSES (IT DOES ONLY APPLY TO STATES) – THE COMMERCE ONLY APPLY TO STATES) – THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES AND THAT HAD BEEN CLEAR CLAUSE DOES AND THAT HAD BEEN CLEAR SINCE SINCE GIBBONS GIBBONS v. v. OGDEN OGDEN AND AND MMCCCULLOCH CULLOCH v. v. MARYLAND.MARYLAND.

PLESSY PLESSY v. v. FERGUSON FERGUSON (1896)(1896)

CHIEF JUSTICE: MELVILLE CHIEF JUSTICE: MELVILLE FULLERFULLER(APPOINTED BY CLEVELAND)(APPOINTED BY CLEVELAND)

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND:

LOUISIANA ENACTED A "JIM CROW"LOUISIANA ENACTED A "JIM CROW"LAW REQUIRING RAILROADS TO HAVELAW REQUIRING RAILROADS TO HAVESEPARATE "BUT EQUAL" CARS FOR BLACK SEPARATE "BUT EQUAL" CARS FOR BLACK AND WHITE PASSENGERS, AND MAKING IT A AND WHITE PASSENGERS, AND MAKING IT A CRIME FOR A PERSON TO RIDE IN THE CRIME FOR A PERSON TO RIDE IN THE WRONG "COLOR" CAR.WRONG "COLOR" CAR.

THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO TEST THE THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO TEST THE SEPARATE CAR ACT (RADICAL REPUBLICANS SEPARATE CAR ACT (RADICAL REPUBLICANS INCLUDING FORMER BLACK ELECTED INCLUDING FORMER BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS) HIRED HOMER PLESSY TO RIDE OFFICIALS) HIRED HOMER PLESSY TO RIDE ON A WHITE CAR. ON A WHITE CAR. TEST CASE!TEST CASE!

PLESSY WAS 1/8 BLACK ("OCTAROON") SO PLESSY WAS 1/8 BLACK ("OCTAROON") SO HE LOOKED WHITE – BUT IN THE U.S., ONE HE LOOKED WHITE – BUT IN THE U.S., ONE DROP OF AFRICAN BLOOD MAKES A PERSON DROP OF AFRICAN BLOOD MAKES A PERSON "BLACK.""BLACK."

COMMITTEE ALSO HIRED A DETECTIVE TO COMMITTEE ALSO HIRED A DETECTIVE TO MAKE SURE POLICE KNEW PLESSY WAS MAKE SURE POLICE KNEW PLESSY WAS BLACK AND WOULD GET ARRESTED – HE BLACK AND WOULD GET ARRESTED – HE WAS. CONVICTED, WENT TO TRIAL – WAS. CONVICTED, WENT TO TRIAL – FERGUSON WAS THE JUDGE.FERGUSON WAS THE JUDGE.

PLESSY (COMMITTEE) FILED A WRIT TO PLESSY (COMMITTEE) FILED A WRIT TO STOP JUDGE FERGUSON FROM HOLDING STOP JUDGE FERGUSON FROM HOLDING THE TRIAL.THE TRIAL.

THEIR CLAIM: THE SEPARATE CAR ACT THEIR CLAIM: THE SEPARATE CAR ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CAUSE – THE STATE EQUAL PROTECTION CAUSE – THE STATE WAS DENYING PLESSY AND OTHER PEOPLE WAS DENYING PLESSY AND OTHER PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF AFRICAN DESCENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.OF THE LAWS.

ISSUEISSUE: DO JIM CROW LAWS VIOLATE THE : DO JIM CROW LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUA; PROTECTION CLAUSE?EQUA; PROTECTION CLAUSE?

COURT DECISION: COURT DECISION: NO. SEPARATE IS NOT NO. SEPARATE IS NOT NECESSARILY UNEQUAL. SEPARATE BUT NECESSARILY UNEQUAL. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS FINE.EQUAL IS FINE.

LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCELEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

MORE JIM CROW LAWS WERE ENACTED—THE MORE JIM CROW LAWS WERE ENACTED—THE SOUTH BECAME ABSOLUTELY SEGREGATED.SOUTH BECAME ABSOLUTELY SEGREGATED.

JIM CROW LAWS REMAINED IN EFFECT IN THE JIM CROW LAWS REMAINED IN EFFECT IN THE SOUTH UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SOUTH UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 WAS ENACTED OF 1964 WAS ENACTED

SEPARATE WAS SEPARATE WAS NEVER NEVER EQUAL IN FACTEQUAL IN FACT

(IN 1956, THE COURT OVERRULED (IN 1956, THE COURT OVERRULED PLESSY PLESSY IN IN BROWN BROWN v. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION – BOARD OF EDUCATION – BUT THE BUT THE SOUTH RESPONDED WITH "MASSIVE SOUTH RESPONDED WITH "MASSIVE RESISTANCE." SEGREGATION DIDN'T END RESISTANCE." SEGREGATION DIDN'T END UNTIL 1970S)UNTIL 1970S)

Q: WHY DO THE OLDEST REST STOPS ON Q: WHY DO THE OLDEST REST STOPS ON THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE HAVE TWO THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE HAVE TWO WOMEN'S RESTROOMS AND TWO MEN'S WOMEN'S RESTROOMS AND TWO MEN'S RESTROOMS?RESTROOMS?

A: IT OPENED IN 1957 – BEFORE THE CIVIL A: IT OPENED IN 1957 – BEFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964!RIGHTS ACT OF 1964!

IT WAS THE SAME IN THE NORTH! NOT BY IT WAS THE SAME IN THE NORTH! NOT BY LAW, BUT WHITE BUSINESSES MOSTLY LAW, BUT WHITE BUSINESSES MOSTLY REFUSED TO SERVE BLACK PEOPLE (OR REFUSED TO SERVE BLACK PEOPLE (OR OFTEN JEWS, MEXICANS, PUERTO RICANS, OFTEN JEWS, MEXICANS, PUERTO RICANS, ETC.)ETC.)