User:Historyatauburn/sandbox/Race in United States Law

Race and United States Law

Race has played and continues to play a role in the justice system today, creating injustices where there may not otherwise be. It is important as an informed citizen we recognize this racism is not limited to a specific race or group. In the cases to follow, we are going to delve into the root of this problem, and how each are still relevant today.

Plessy v. Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson is the now infamous case in which the United States Supreme Court declared it constitutional for races to be kept separate. In the state of Louisiana, there was a state law called the Separate Car Act that permitted separate railway cars for African Americans and Caucasians. A man known as Homer Plessy, who was considered African American under the Louisiana law even though he was 7/8 Caucasian and only 1/8 African American, had taken a seat in the Caucasian section of a railway car. Plessy was soon asked to move, where he refused which then led to his arrest and imprisonment. On Plessy’s behalf, the law was challenged claiming that it was violating the equal protection law under the 14th Amendment. Plessy then lost in a 7-1 verdict that the Louisiana law was constitutional because it stated that races were “separate but equal.” Plessy asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to issue a writ of prohibition against Judge Ferguson to keep him from enforcing the law, but the Louisiana Supreme Court found the law constitutional and that it did not violate the 14th amendment. Though Plessy v. Ferguson is an important case to us now, at the time, it had not changed much. The final decision of this case maintained the public segregation under the cover of “separate but equal.” The significance of the Plessy conclusion had resurfaced a few years later when the Richmond County had closed the only African American high school located in the state of Georgia. This went against the “separate but equal doctrine” as there were two high schools for white children that were being provide with sufficient funds. It stayed this way until 1954 when the Brown v. Board of Education case reversed it. Today, all races are able to attend schools and use transportation equally. Plessy v. Ferguson played an important role in the Brown v. Board of Education case that came many years later. The “separate but equal” law that had been previously mentioned in the Plessy v. Ferguson case was ruled as not equal. Plessy v. Ferguson along with the help of Brown v. Board of Education further changed the law, as we know it by passing the Civil Right Act of 1964. Race played an important role in this particular court case. Plessy v. Ferguson was one of the first court cases to shed light on the issues with segregation. Though the case did not end as wanted, it allowed a crack in the door that would later lead to the life changing laws that we hold in the United States today. With this being said, racial laws in the United States differ dramatically from some other countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, they have a law passed known as The Race Relations Act 1965. The Race Relations Act prohibits racial discrimination in public areas and declared the behavior of hatred shown towards another race as an offence. In the United States, we only have laws that get rid of segregation and form equality for all races but no law that punishes an act of racism. The United Kingdom took it to the next step, which ultimately decreases the overall amount of racial discrimination.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

The controversy of Dred Scott vs. Sandford case started back in 1833. A doctor named John Emerson purchased a slave named Dred Scott. Emerson and Scott moved to a territory in Wisconsin where slavery was not allowed by the Missouri Compromise. They lived there for around four years. During that time, Scott would ask work for people around the town while Emerson was away. Scott and his family then moved to St. Louis with Emerson. When Emerson died, he left Scott to his his wife and kids. In 1846, three years after Emerson’s death, Scott had decided to buy his freedom back with all of the hard work and money he had saved. Eliza Emerson, John Emerson’s wife, refused. Scott then sued the Emerson family because he thought he was legally free because he was brought to live in a free territory. In the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case, the Supreme Court decided that anyone of African descent could not be considered American citizens. It did not matter if a person was considered free or was a slave. Because of this, these people were not even allowed to sue in court. The court ruled that Congress did not have enough power to get rid of slavery within the United States, so slave owners became the holders of these rights. The slaves and the people in Congress could not do anything because the slave owners were protected under the fifth amendment. Race plays a major part in this court case. Dred Scott was living in a free territory from slavery. He had worked so many years to earn enough money to buy his freedom, and he got denied. The only reason the court had made the decision they did was because he was an African American. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts are only able to hear cases from "citizens" of the United States. The people in Court claimed that because Scott was black and that his ancestors were brought to this country, that he did not fit under Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, he was not able to sue in Federal Court. Even though Scott had a sufficient argument and evidence, he was denied simply because of his race and where his ancestors came from. This law affected the future of slavery. Slaves, or any African American person, could not be represented well in Court. The Court lost its rights to ban slavery, therefore slave owners held all of the power. This was a nightmare for slaves in the United States. Slavery was not going anywhere for awhile after this law this law was put into place. This case was a very important one to learn from. We do not have slavery to the extent that it once was, but we did learn from this piece of history. There are not laws today that restrict African Americans from suing in Court…...

Loving vs. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia pitted an interracial couple Mildred Jeter, a 17 year old african american woman and her older boyfriend, Richard Loving, a 23 year old construction worker against Virginia, which forbid the marriage of blacks and whites in 1958. The two married in Washington D.C., and then returned to Virginia where they were arrested and jailed for unlawful cohabitation. In their trial, the judge agreed to shorten their one-year sentence if they agreed to leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. “The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."” (Oyez Cases). This case is especially interesting because it also demonstrates racism against the white man, which was not common in this day and time. Because it was unlawful for him to marry an African American, he is suppressed to the same extent as her. This is a hard pill to swallow and imagine these days, especially considering the amount of interracial marriages we have today, including some of the most famous people in the United states: The Kardashians, famous athletes, models. This is also controversial because the law was not applied in every state. This case was a game changer for interracial marriage in the United States. In a statement to The Root, Kim Keenan, general counsel for the NAACP, said of Loving v. Virginia's impact, "Along with other key cases, it brought an end to separate-and-unequal legally sanctioned way of life in America." Loving v. Virginia is still playing a major role in the United States today. Without this case, we would not have President Obama, who had an African American father and a White mother, and some are even saying Loving v. Virginia is spearheading the gay-marriage movement, highlighting the parallels between the two. Currently in the United States, there are no Laws against interracial marriage. According to the New York Times, mixed-race families are changing the racial as well as community makeup of states in the Deep South, with states like Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee experiencing a nearly 80 percent increase in mixed-race families, and North Carolina experiencing a 50 percent increase. These changing demographics of the last decade are already having ramifications at the ballot box. In 2008 Barack Obama became the first Democrat to carry the state of North Carolina in a presidential election since Jimmy Carter in 1976 (The Root). This case is similar to Dred Scott v. Sandford, as well as Plessy v. Ferguson, because they both involve racism against an African American.

'Korematsu v. United States'

Korematsu v. United States is widely recognized throughout the United States because the case occurred two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. government executed an order requiring Japanese-Americans to move into relocation camps as a matter of national security. In a time of confusion and bewilderment President Franklin Roosevelt decided to sign Executive Order 9066 on February 19th, 1942. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese man, chose to stay at his residence rather than obey the order. He was soon arrested and convicted of violating the order. His response to this act was that Executive Order 9066 violated the Fifth Amendment. The controversy around this case revolves around whether the President went past his powers and implemented exclusion and restriction to the rights of Japanese descent Americans. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice. Instead, they believed it was a strategic move to keep the West Coast further protected from another invasion. The Supreme Court ruled that the detention was a “military necessity” and not based on race. Although race doesn’t seem to be the main target during this situation it certainly was a factor that lead to relocating Japanese Americans. The order did not force any other races to abide by these rules and relocate to specific camps. The U.S. feared the Japanese. They had no idea if anymore attacks were to occur in the future. Although race was “not a factor” in the decision, it is clear the U.S. was terrified of the Japanese. The President believed the best way to settle the issue between Japan's attacks and appealing to the people of the United States was to make a compromise and put Japanese Americans in relocation camps to buy time and figure out a new plan of attack. Historians and politicians need to ask themselves why this case was so important and how it had the ability to alter the future. This case had an immediate effect on the citizens at the time. Although some believed this order was pointless and held racial discrimination many people felt a sense of safety and security after having the order executed. Justice Jackson’s take on the case at the time was that “the martial necessity arising from the danger of espionage and sabotage warranted the military’s evacuation order” (U.S. Court Gov). The evacuation led to over 100,000 Japanese Americans relocated to the camps. Families had less than a few days to move out and leave behind valuable possessions and property. Many came back after everything simmered down to come home to their houses ransacked, items stolen, and land claimed by others through dubious means. Their lives had been essentially ruined. Did they deserve the discrimination they received simply for coming from a country who had attacked the U.S. on its own turf? Racism had shifted its perspective from discriminating African Americans to the Japanese. If the attack on Pearl Harbor had never happened, Japanese Americans would never have received the backlash that occurred for years.

Though we are taking steps in the right direction to end the battle of racism in the justice system in the United States, we are far from where we need to be. These 4 cases are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the magnitude of cases that race has played a roll in. It sparks an interest to dive deeper into politics and the operation of the court justice system.