readiness standards comprise 35% of the u. s. history test 21 (a)

Readiness standards comprise 35% of the U. S. History Test

21 (A)

Readiness Standard (21)The student understands the impact of the

American civil rights movement.

The Student is expected to:(A) Analyze the effects of landmark U. S. Supreme

Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, & other U. S. Supreme Court decisions such

as Plessy v. Ferguson, Hernandez v. Texas, Tinker v. Des Moines, Wisconsin v. Yoder, & White v. RegesterSEE ALSO / COMPARE TO Supporting Standard 9 (I)



The Student is expected to:(A) 1 Analyze the effects of landmark U. S. Supreme

Court decisions, including Plessy v. Ferguson

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments

• S Thirteenth Amendment—Congressional passage January 1865; ratification December 1865 Prohibited slavery in the U.S.

• C Fourteenth Amendment—Congressional passage June 1866; ratification July 1868 gave right of citizenship to freedmen

• V Fifteenth Amendment—Congressional passage February 1869; ratification March 1870 prohibited denial of franchise or the vote because of race, color, or past servitude

Marker placed at Press and Royal Streets in New Orleans on February 12, 2009 commemorating the arrest of Homer Plessy on June 7, 1892 for violating the Louisiana 1890 Separate Car Act.

Segregation in American Education—Plessy v. Ferguson • John H. Ferguson (1806-1887), the Orleans

Parish criminal court judge who ruled in the original case

• John Marshall Harlan, the only Supreme Court Justice who ruled in favor of Homer A. Plessy

• The Supreme Court (7-1) upholds a Louisiana law requiring separaterailroad cars for Blacks and whites

• The ruling gave impetus to a host of Jim Crow laws that began to be introduced in the South

The BackgroundPlessy v. Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a landmark U. S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a landmark U. S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. “Separate but equal” remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its

repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. “Separate but equal” remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its

repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens, a committee dedicated to repeal Louisiana’s Separate Car Act of 1890), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy’s arrest on June 7, 1892, in an act of civil disobedience

in order to challenge Louisiana’s segregation law, replied, “We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred.”

After the Supreme Court ruling, the New Orleans Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens, a committee dedicated to repeal Louisiana’s Separate Car Act of 1890), which had brought the suit and had arranged for Homer Plessy’s arrest on June 7, 1892, in an act of civil disobedience

in order to challenge Louisiana’s segregation law, replied, “We, as freemen, still believe that we were right and our cause is sacred.”

Plessy was born a free man and was an “octoroon” (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent).

However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the “colored” car.

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a “whites only” car. After Plessy took a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it, and sit instead in the blacks-

only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective. As planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train at Press

and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.

Plessy was born a free man and was an “octoroon” (someone of seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent).

However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the “colored” car.

On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a “whites only” car. After Plessy took a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it, and sit instead in the blacks-

only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective. As planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train at Press

and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish.

The defense built its case on violations of Plessy’s rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, and the Fourteenth

Amendment, which guarantees the same rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights, against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The defense built its case on violations of Plessy’s rights under the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, and the Fourteenth

Amendment, which guarantees the same rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights, against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, who decried the excesses of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote a scathing dissent in which he predicted the court’s

decision would become as infamous as that of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). As heralded as this dissent may be, in which Harlan called for a

“color-blind” constitution, it should be noted that he did not view all races as equal.

The case helped cement the legal foundation for the doctrine of separate but equal, the idea that segregation based on classifications was legal as long as facilities were of equal quality. However, Southern state governments refused to provide blacks with genuinely equal facilities and resources in the years after the Plessy decision.

The states not only separated races but, in actuality, ensured differences in quality. In January 1897, Homer Plessy pleaded guilty to the violation and paid the fine.

The case helped cement the legal foundation for the doctrine of separate but equal, the idea that segregation based on classifications was legal as long as facilities were of equal quality. However, Southern state governments refused to provide blacks with genuinely equal facilities and resources in the years after the Plessy decision.

The states not only separated races but, in actuality, ensured differences in quality. In January 1897, Homer Plessy pleaded guilty to the violation and paid the fine.


American civil rights movement.The Student is expected to:

(A) 2 Analyze the effects of landmark U. S. Supreme Court decisions, including Brown

v. Board of Education

Supporting Standard (9)The student understands the impact of the


The Student is expected to:(I) 1 Describe how litigation such as the

landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education played a role in protecting the

rights of the minority during the civil rights movement

Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court ruling in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students

unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954,

the Warren Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court ruling in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students

unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954,

the Warren Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.

The named plaintiff, Oliver L. Brown, was a parent, a welder in the shops of the Santa Fe Railroad, an assistant pastor at his local church, and an African

American. He was convinced to join the lawsuit by Scott, a childhood friend. Brown’s daughter Linda, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe Elementary, her segregated black school one mile away,

while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both

white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required

racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it.

The plaintiffs in Brown asserted that this system of racial separation, while masquerading as providing separate but equal treatment of both

white and black Americans, instead perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans. Racial segregation in education varied widely from the 17 states that required

racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it.

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson. The case of Brown v. Board of Education

as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases. All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention

of gross inferiority of the segregated schools’ physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors.

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of

1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools.

As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of

1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools.

The District Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson. The case of Brown v. Board of Education

as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases. All were NAACP-sponsored cases. The Kansas case was unique among the group in that there was no contention

of gross inferiority of the segregated schools’ physical plant, curriculum, or staff. The district court found substantial equality as to all such factors.

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest

belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of

liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.

The NAACP’s chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state’s ambivalent

defense in his first appellate trial. On May 17, 1954, these men, members of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools is

unconstitutional.

The NAACP’s chief counsel, Thurgood Marshall—who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967—argued the case before the Supreme Court for the plaintiffs. Assistant attorney general Paul Wilson—later distinguished emeritus professor of law at the University of Kansas—conducted the state’s ambivalent

defense in his first appellate trial. On May 17, 1954, these men, members of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial segregation in public schools is

unconstitutional.

Warren convened a meeting of the justices, and presented to them the simple argument that the only reason to sustain segregation was an honest

belief in the inferiority of Negroes. Warren further submitted that the Court must overrule Plessy to maintain its legitimacy as an institution of

liberty, and it must do so unanimously to avoid massive Southern resistance. He began to build a unanimous opinion.

“Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. . . . We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained

of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given

to black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research conducted by Kenneth Clark assisted by June Shagaloff. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were “equal,” which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but

whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong “no.”

The key holding of the Court was that, even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and unconstitutional. They found that a significant psychological and social disadvantage was given

to black children from the nature of segregation itself, drawing on research conducted by Kenneth Clark assisted by June Shagaloff. This aspect was vital because the question was not whether the schools were “equal,” which under Plessy they nominally should have been, but

whether the doctrine of separate was constitutional. The justices answered with a strong “no.”

“Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. . . . We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational

facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained

of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as “Brown II” the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation

to district courts with orders that desegregation occur “with all deliberate speed.” Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language “all deliberate speed” was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure

reasonable haste for compliance with the court's instruction. Many Southern states and school districts interpreted “Brown II” as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some

cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated “private” schools, and “token” integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-

only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.

In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools requesting relief concerning the task of desegregation. In their decision, which became known as “Brown II” the court delegated the task of carrying out school desegregation

to district courts with orders that desegregation occur “with all deliberate speed.” Supporters of the earlier decision were displeased with this decision. The language “all deliberate speed” was seen by critics as too ambiguous to ensure

reasonable haste for compliance with the court's instruction. Many Southern states and school districts interpreted “Brown II” as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some

cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated “private” schools, and “token” integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-

only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools.



The Student is expected to:(A) 3 Analyze the effects of landmark

U. S. Supreme Court decisions, including Hernandez v. Texas

Supporting Standard (9)The student understands the impact of the


The Student is expected to:(I) 4 Describe how litigation such as the

landmark case of Hernandez v. Texas played a role in protecting the rights of the

minority during the civil rights movement

Pedro Hernandez, a Mexican agricultural worker, was convicted for the murder of Joe Espinosa. Hernandez’s legal team set out to demonstrate that the jury could not be impartial unless members of non-Caucasian

races were allowed on the jury-selecting committees; no Mexican American had been on a jury for more than 25 years in Jackson

County, Tx., the county in which the case was tried.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954) was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case that ruled that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the U. S. had equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the

Constitution.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954) was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case that ruled that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the U. S. had equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the

Constitution.

Pedro Hernandez, a Mexican agricultural worker, was convicted for the murder of Joe Espinosa. Hernandez’s legal team set out to demonstrate that the jury could not be impartial unless members of non-Caucasian

races were allowed on the jury-selecting committees; no Mexican American had been on a jury for more than 25 years in Jackson

County, Tx., the county in which the case was tried.

Hernandez v. Texas

Chief Justice Earl Warren & the Court unanimously ruled in favor of Hernandez, requiring that he be retried with a

jury composed without regard to ethnicity. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects Americans

regardless of racial heritage.

Chief Justice Earl Warren & the Court unanimously ruled in favor of Hernandez, requiring that he be retried with a

jury composed without regard to ethnicity. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects Americans

regardless of racial heritage.

Hernández v. Texas was the brown Brown v. Board of Education. It was the first time that Mexican-American lawyers appeared before the United

States Supreme Court, and their victory established a landmark in Mexican-American civil rights.



(A) 4 Analyze the effects of landmark U. S. Supreme Court decisions, including Tinker v.

Des Moines

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) was a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court

that defined the constitutional rights of students in U. S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts

today to determine whether a school’s disciplinary actions violate students’ First Amendment rights.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) was a decision by the U. S. Supreme Court

that defined the constitutional rights of students in U. S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts

today to determine whether a school’s disciplinary actions violate students’ First Amendment rights.

In 1965, Des Moines, Ia., residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools to

protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school

children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately.

In 1965, Des Moines, Ia., residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools to

protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school

children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately.

Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so. All were suspended from school until

after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.

A suit was not filed until after the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached their family, and the ACLU agreed to help the family with the lawsuit. Their parents, in turn, filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand,

and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.

Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt chose to violate this policy, and the next day John Tinker also did so.

All were suspended from school until after January 1, 1966, when their protest had been scheduled to end.

A suit was not filed until after the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached their family, and the ACLU agreed to help the family with the lawsuit. Their parents, in turn, filed suit in U.S. District Court, which upheld the decision of the Des Moines school board. A tie vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand,

and forced the Tinkers and Eckhardts to appeal to the Supreme Court directly. The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968.

Legal precedents and issues

Previous decisions, such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, had established that students did have some

constitutional protections in public school. This case was the first time that the court set forth standards for safeguarding public

school students’ free speech rights. This case involved Symbolic Speech, which was first recognized in Stromberg v. California.

Previous decisions, such as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, had established that students did have some

constitutional protections in public school. This case was the first time that the court set forth standards for safeguarding public

school students’ free speech rights. This case involved Symbolic Speech, which was first recognized in Stromberg v. California.

The court’s 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate

constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, “It can hardly be argued that either

students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Justice Abe Fortas wrote the

majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was “based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result

from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation’s part in the conflagration in Vietnam.” The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they “must be able

to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” allowing schools to forbid conduct that would

“materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” The Court found

that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally

protected symbolic speech.

The court’s 7 to 2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion, holding that the speech regulation at issue in Tinker was “based upon an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of opposition to this Nation’s part in the conflagration in Vietnam.” The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they “must be able to show

that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” allowing schools to forbid conduct that would “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.” The Court found that the actions of the Tinkers in wearing armbands did not

cause disruption and held that their activity represented constitutionally protected symbolic speech.

Subsequent Jurisprudence

Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of

student free speech rights. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student’s sexual innuendo–laden

speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Though Fraser applies the Tinker test of disruption to school decorum, if not

undermining of educational mission, the effect is to make an exception to Tinker for “indecent” speech.

Tinker remains a viable and frequently-cited Court precedent, though subsequent Court decisions have determined limitations on the scope of

student free speech rights. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, a 1986 case, the Supreme Court held that a high school student’s sexual innuendo–laden

speech during a student assembly was not constitutionally protected. Though Fraser applies the Tinker test of disruption to school decorum, if not

undermining of educational mission, the effect is to make an exception to Tinker for “indecent” speech.



(A) 5 Analyze the effects of landmark U. S. Supreme Court decisions, including

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), is the case in which the U. S. Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents’ fundamental right

to freedom of religion outweighed the state’s interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents’ right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), is the case in which the U. S. Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents’ fundamental right

to freedom of religion outweighed the state’s interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents’ right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.

Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending New Glarus High School in the New Glarus, Wi., school district at the end of the eighth grade, all due to their parents’ religious beliefs. The three families were

represented by Jonas Yoder (one of the fathers involved in the case) when the case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green County Court. Each defendant was fined the sum of five dollars. Thereafter the Wisconsin Supreme Court found

in Yoder’s favor. At this point Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three Amish students from three different families stopped attending New Glarus High School in the New Glarus, Wi., school district at the end of the eighth grade, all due to their parents’ religious beliefs. The three families were

represented by Jonas Yoder (one of the fathers involved in the case) when the case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green County Court. Each defendant was fined the sum of five dollars. Thereafter the Wisconsin Supreme Court found

in Yoder’s favor. At this point Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yoder in a unanimous decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court “sustained respondents’ claim that application of the

compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the

Fourteenth Amendment.”

The U.S. Supreme Court held as follows: 1. States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.2. Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters. The Amish way of life is one of deep religious convictions that stems from the Bible. It is determined by their religion, which involves their rejection of worldly goods and their living in the Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory secondary education is in sharp conflict with their way of life.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Yoder in a unanimous decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court “sustained respondents’ claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under

the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

3. With respect to the State of Wisconsin’s argument that additional modern education beyond 8th grade is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and productively in America’s political system, the Court disagreed. It argued that the State provided no evidence showing any great benefit to having two extra years in the public schools. Furthermore, the Court contended that the Amish community was a very successful social unit in American society, a self-sufficient, law-abiding member of society, which paid all of the required taxes and rejected any type of public welfare. The Amish children, upon leaving the public school system, continued their education in the form of vocational training.4. The Court found no evidence that by leaving the Amish community without two additional years of schooling, young Amish children would become burdens on society. To the contrary, the Court argued that they had good vocational background to rely upon. It was the State’s mistaken assumption that Amish children were ignorant. Compulsory education after elementary school was a recent movement that developed in the early 20th century in order to prevent child labor and keep children of certain ages in school. The State of Wisconsin’s arguments about compelling the school attendance were therefore less substantial.5. Responding to Justice Douglas's dissent, the Court argued that the question before it was about the interests of the parents to exercise free religion, and did not relate to the child's First Amendment’s rights. As such, the argument pertaining to the child's right to exercise free religion was irrelevant in this case.

The Amish did not believe in going to court to settle disputes but instead follow the biblical command to “turn the other cheek.” Thus,

the Amish are at a disadvantage when it comes to defending themselves in courts or before legislative committees. However, a

Lutheran minister, Reverend William C. Lindholm, took an interest in Amish legal difficulties from a religious freedom perspective and

founded The National Committee for Amish Religious freedom (partly as a result of this case) and then provided them with legal

counsel.

Under Amish church standards, higher education was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple way of life, but also endangering to their salvation. These men appealed for exemption from compulsory education under the basis of these religious convictions. They sincerely held to the belief that the values

their children would learn at home would surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school.

Under Amish church standards, higher education was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple way of life, but also endangering to their salvation. These men appealed for exemption from compulsory education under the basis of these religious convictions. They sincerely held to the belief that the values

their children would learn at home would surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school.

The ruling is cited as a basis for allowing people to be educated outside traditional

private or public schools, such as with homeschooling.

Regarding the consequences for the Amish: “Since Wisconsin v. Yoder, all states must grant the Old Order Amish the right to establish their own schools (should they choose) or to withdraw from public institutions after completing

eighth grade. In some communities Amish parents have continued to send their children to public elementary schools even after Wisconsin v. Yoder. In most places tensions eased considerably after the Supreme Court ruling.”

The ruling is cited as a basis for allowing people to be educated outside traditional private or public schools, such as with homeschooling.



The Student is expected to:(A) 6 Analyze the effects of landmark U. S.

Supreme Court decisions, including White v. Regester

White, Secretary of State of Texas, et. al. v. Regester

On June 18, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision stating that the case of White, Secretary Of State Of Texas, Et Al. v. Regester Et Al. (docket no. 72-147) should be affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and declaring a state or

territorial law, regulation, or constitutional provision as unconstitutional. The judgment rested on the Court’s authority over judicial review at the state level. It was decided by an opinion of the court (orally argued) and was conservative in

nature.

In this litigation challenging the Texas 1970 legislative reapportionment scheme, a three-judge District Court held that the House plan, state-wide, contained constitutionally impermissible deviations from population equality, and that the multi-

member districts provided for Bexar and Dallas Counties invidiously discriminated against cognizable racial or ethnic groups. Though the entire plan was declared invalid, the court permitted its use for the 1972 election except for its injunction order

requiring those two county multi-member districts to be reconstituted into single member districts.

In this litigation challenging the Texas 1970 legislative reapportionment scheme, a three-judge District Court held that the House plan, state-wide, contained constitutionally impermissible deviations from population equality, and that the multi-

member districts provided for Bexar and Dallas Counties invidiously discriminated against cognizable racial or ethnic groups. Though the entire plan was declared invalid, the court permitted its use for the 1972 election except for its injunction order

requiring those two county multi-member districts to be reconstituted into single member districts.

The District Court’s order requiring disestablishment of the multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexar Counties was warranted in the

light of the history of political discrimination against Negroes and Mexican-Americans residing,

respectively, in those counties and the residual effects of such discrimination upon those groups.

The Court undertook review of the case via appeal and heard the case on February 26, 1973. The case originated in the Texas Western U.S. District Court and was heard directly from that court by the U.S.

Supreme Court.

The District Court’s order requiring disestablishment of the multi-member districts in Dallas and Bexar Counties was warranted in the light of the history of political discrimination against Negroes and Mexican-Americans residing, respectively, in those counties and the residual effects of such discrimination upon those groups. The Court undertook review of the case via appeal and heard the case on February 26, 1973. The case originated in the Texas Western U.S. District Court and was heard

directly from that court by the U.S. Supreme Court.

readiness standards comprise 35% of the u. s. history test 21 (a)

Documents

supreme court justice

supreme court ruling

supreme court decisions

supreme court decision

plessythe supreme court

doctrine of separate

ferguson john

justice henry billings