Plessy

- 14 amendment was not intended to enforce social equality

- Separate train cars for whites and blacks are allowed
- States can segregate, but has to be reasonable and promoting public
good
- Look at tradition to determine what is reasonable
- Underlying fallacy of plessys argument: he makes it a social issue (in
your head)
- Harlan dissent: real hero of this decision

Why might WW2 mark a turning point in attitude- Black and Whites fighting
together against a racist totalitarian regime (look bad on US to have racism)
- European colonial empires in Africa collapsed

Schools
- Younger generation
- State funding 14
th
amendment
- Means to social advancement
- Cons: no fundamental right to education

Still have to discern whether the right in question is a right under the 14
th

amendment

Problem with De Factor segregation- patterns in residential areas segregation

De jure- state mandates segregation by law
De Facto- it so happens that neighborhood is segregated. Even when you
outlaw de jure segregation there is a problem with De Facto segregation

Ct says that although framers werent focused on pub ed, it is extremely
important today and states must comply with full terms (no segregation)

Psychological considerations- inferiority in hearts and minds (detrimental
result on black school children)

Brown- limited to just education (never says Plessy is overruled) It limits
Plessy, though.

Segregation fails even under substantive due process

Reverse in corporation- first 8
th
amends are incorporated against the states
5
th
amendment- due process clause (Fed) through the DP clause of the 14
th

Amendment
Due process incorporates equality/equal protection




P. 518
Racial classifications automatically trigger strict scrutiny.
Justice Murphy rational basis, applied wrongly
KNOW Williamson v. Lee Optical

LAWS THAT MAKE NO EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO RACE AND ARE NEUTRAL
ON THEIR FACE, YET STILL APPLY TO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
- Do not trigger strict scrutiny
- Ever law is likely to have some racially disproportionate impact
- Show both racially discriminatory purpose and a racially disparate effect

Arlington
- Impact alone is not determinative, must look to other evidence
- The area had long been zoned for single family use, no prima facie of
racially discriminatory purpose
Rogers v. Lodge
-