Race Law Stories
Authors:
Moran, Rachel F. / Carbado, Devon Wayne
Edition:
1st
Copyright Date:
2008
24 chapters
have results for law stories
Acknowledgments 2 results
- I would like to thank the UCLA School of Law, the UCLA Academic Senate and the Fletcher Foundation for providing grants that supported the production of this volume. I also thank the Jamestown Project and Dean Michael Schill for encouraging me to pursue it. I would like to acknowledge the UCLA School of Law’s Critical Race Studies Program, which provided an intellectual context in which I could productively work on
- I would like to thank the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and the Berkeley campus for summer funding and sabbatical support that enabled me to do this research. I am also grateful to Fordham Law School, which invited me to become the Bacon-Kilkenny Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law during Fall 2005. This visit afforded me the opportunity to do in-depth work on my chapter and to present a version of it during a faculty workshop. In addition, Fordham sponsored a workshop that permitted all of the authors to think collectively about the project as well as a public conference that showcased the stories in the book. Dean William Treanor, Helen Herman, and Darin Neely played key roles in making the workshop and conference a reality. I also benefited from the chance to present earlier versions of my chapter at Emory University School of Law, Rutgers Law School, UCLA School of Law, and the University of Minnesota Law School. I received very able assistance from the...Law
- Open Chapter
Introduction 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Do we need a race law canon? The answer is not obviously “yes.” Some would say that the cases
- Because of these disagreements, there is no race law canon as such. Few law schools offer courses that focus specifically on race except as occasional seminars. In fact, of the more than 190 accredited law schools in the United States, as of the publication of this volume, only UCLA School of Law offers a Critical Race Studies Program, which includes a formally organized race law curriculum.
- Telling Stories Out of Law: The Structure and Organization of
- Constitutional Law Stories
- Race Law Stories
- Open Chapter
Foreword 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The cases presented here, famous, not-so-famous, and infamous, compellingly capture the “back story” behind race law. They highlight various forms of claims-making among litigants, offer insightful doctrinal
- Race remains “unfinished business” and will continue to be so in an era when the contradiction between formal equality and structural inequality is normalized; and when two incompatible and competing “stories” — one colorblind, the other color-conscious — shape the unstable equilibrium that characterizes racial formation in the United States today. Because the meaning of race is still unsettled, its competing “stories” take shape in the form of claims-making by litigants in pursuit of racial equality and social justice. Uncertainty and contrariety are continually reproduced in the decisions that shape the race law canon: sometimes reaffirming old notions, sometimes seeking to establish new understandings of both race and rights. This unfinished business is the broader story that
- Race Law Stories
- Race Law Stories
- Perhaps what is most revealing in the stories presented in this volume is the courts’ insistence on their prerogative to interpret the meaning of race and to determine what aspects of a litigant’s identity, behavior, or appearance are race- (or gender-) based. Courts remain free to invoke or ignore both scientific claims and assertions of common sense. The arbitrary character of the race law canon is in the end the greatest evidence for the centrality of narrative in civil rights law and indeed human rights law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Classical Racialism, Justice Story, and Margaret Morgan’s Journey from Freedom to Slavery: The Story of Prigg v. Pennsylvania 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Finally, and by way of summary, Justice Story’s opinion is notoriously overbroad. Were Justice Story the anti-slavery advocate he and others claimed to be, he could have drafted a much narrower opinion. Take, for instance, the common law right of recaption. In Justice Story’s words, the Fugitive Slave Clause “manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right” of reclamation. Justice Story reasoned that the right of recaption derived from the Constitution itself, and that even the minimal process prescribed by the personal liberty laws offended slave-owners’ right of recaption. He could have declared the Pennsylvania personal liberty law unconstitutional without announcing a sweeping right of recaption that, in effect, removed any protection whatsoever for free blacks kidnapped into slavery. Such a broad and unsupported reading of the Fugitive Slave Clause, critics argue, does not comport with Justice Story’s reputation as an anti-slavery jurist.
- Justice Story refused to consider serious antislavery arguments, an omission that has vexed scholars for years. So, what motivated him to write in the way that he did? Cover’s ethical theory seems insufficient in light of the substantial formal-legal critique, which questions the integrity of Justice Story’s legal reasoning. For Cover’s theory to be correct, there must have been a dilemma—a conflict between the judge’s personal morality and the perceived requirements of the law. The formal-legal critique undermines the notion that Justice Story was formally constrained by existing law in drafting in the exceedingly pro-slavery vocabulary he employed. Cover’s analysis assumes that Justice Story was an anti-slavery proponent, but the record is not so clear and there are compelling counter-narratives that explain Justice Story’s failure to condemn slavery and to deter the kidnapping of free blacks. ...Cover, that Justice Story wrote an honest opinion consistent with his perception...law
- decision. This critique does not accept the claim that the positive law required Justice Story to endorse slavery. Even assuming the limits of positivism, these scholars maintain that the opinion employed poor legal reasoning, selective use of the facts, and a thin analysis of history to support an excessively pro-slavery opinion. According to this view, Justice Story drafted an intentionally pro-slavery opinion owing to his nationalistic values and jurisprudence. Significantly, some scholars even reject the common assumption that Justice Story held substantial anti-slavery allegiances. Justice Story believed strongly in property rights and expansive national power, the argument goes, but he did not hold the abolitionist values commonly ascribed to him. These scholars instead believe that Justice Story used abolitionist rhetoric in order to advance his interests in maintaining Northern hegemony in the face of increasing Southern political power. ...-legal critiques of Justice Story’...
- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: Statesman of the Old Republic
- is a tale of two stories. Not only does tell the story of Margaret Morgan’s journey from freedom to slavery, but it also tells a story about one of our most respected Supreme Court justices. For centuries now, race has insinuated itself into almost all of our human relationships. In Justice Story’s era, race was conceptualized in the most rigidly essentialist vocabularies, and his ambivalence toward the slavery question derived from the racial vocabulary of his day, which relegated blacks to a sub-human, typologically distinct category. That Margaret Morgan and her children’s fate were lost somewhere in the interstices of history epitomizes this lack of regard for or interest in the sufferings of the black community. At a minimum, Margaret Morgan’s story reminds us that the law, like every other human institution, is informed, to varying degrees, by the social ethos. Classical racialism not only affected economic and immigration policy, but it framed the very background... ...law...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Multiracialism and the Social Construction of Race: The Story of Hudgins v. Wrights 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Story of the
- demonstrates the impact of a growing multiracial population on Virginia’s racial classification laws in a society that required segregation to preserve slavery. Specifically, this story analyzes how helped to establish a system of racial definitions that entrenched a black class of enslaved labor within the tobacco economy. The chapter begins with the emergence of the slave system in Virginia and details how definitions of race shifted with the growth of a mixedrace population that threatened the stability of segregation and slave labor. This account also illustrates how the small numbers of American Indians and their propensity to escape intensified the need to isolate blacks, who generally could be identified by the most commonly used proxy for race—skin color—in a system of long, hard enslavement. Thereafter, the chapter tells the story of
- , Laws of Virginia, June 1676, Bacon’s Laws, at 346; Laws of Virginia, Feb. 1676–77, 29th Charles II, at 404.
- Laws of Virginia, Apr. 1691, 3d William & Mary, Act IX, at 69; Laws of Virginia, Oct. 1705, 4th Anne, Ch. L2, at 468.
- Under the statute, a declaration that one’s maternal ancestor was an American Indian who was either born or arrived in Virginia after 1691 became critical to the freedom of those who had white or native-looking appearances and were alleged to be slaves descended from black women. As the stakes associated with racial identity took on profound significance, disputes over the classification of individuals with an ambiguous appearance or ancestry made their way into the courts. These battles over the color line and who was slave or free bring us directly to the story of
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Representation and Raceblindness: The Story of Shaw v. Reno 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Story of
- Understanding this story also necessitates an examination of the post–1990 redistricting process, during which the Justice Department of President George H.W. Bush pursued an aggressive VRA enforcement policy. Federal officials demanded that Southern states increase the number of safe minority districts, a policy that concentrated the most reliably Democratic constituency (i.e., blacks) and thereby facilitated gains in Republican legislative power in surrounding districts. The Justice Department’s effort to increase the number of majority-minority districts led directly to the litigation in North Carolina and, eventually, to But the most fascinating part of the story is what has transpired since the Court’s 1993 opinion in
- Like many stories in the area of race law,
- of the story of , but rather the beginning of a new story—one for which the conclusion has yet to be written.
- To understand the story of
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Disfiguring Civil Rights to Deny Indigenous Hawai–ian Self–Determination: The Story of Rice v. Cayetano 37 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Story of
- For an illuminating discussion of “preferential treatment” in Native American law, see Carole Goldberg,
- What, then, was really going on? In a country dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, but with a stark history of racial and gender discrimination, civil rights progress under the law was supposed to be a hard but steady upward pull toward real equality. This often told story, however, was part truth and part illusion.
- First, as mentioned, justice claims (seeking reparations, compensation, an apology, or public truth-telling) begin with back-and-forth struggles over the creation of public or collective memory. Those struggles are a fight over who will tell the dominant story of injustice (or absence thereof) and how that story will be shaped.
- Third, this constructed memory implicates politics because struggles over memory are often struggles between colliding ideologies and differing worldviews. “Remembering” what happened thus entails not only recounting “facts” but also grasping how selected experiences shape the group’s story and public image. Both proponents and opponents of redress select certain events or images to shape their version of the story.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Judicial Opinions as Racial Narratives: The Story of Richmond v. Croson 68 results (showing 5 best matches)
- On the other hand, a well-told contextual legal narrative provides rich factual and historical detail of people and events as a way to illuminate understanding of a particular doctrinal issue. This kind of narrative tells a story about specific people in particular places in particular times. Because the story provides information that readers previously did not have, the narrative educates them. In educating readers about events, people, and places with which they are not familiar, a contextual narrative can help readers to empathize with the story’s “characters.” A contextual legal narrative produces new knowledge for the reader, new ways of understanding the world and the law. And, to the extent that these stories produce new knowledge that challenges status quo-reinforcing beliefs, contextual narratives have the power to raise awareness about racial subordination and the law’s role in rectifying or reinforcing this injustice.
- . at 208–09 (noting that judges exercise control over the law by the use of limited narratives as a means to convey a certain side of a story that only advances certain goals, while ignoring other facts or characterizations that change the story).
- In a legal dispute, a judge has to choose between competing narrative constructions of what happened in the past, declare one story over another as the definitively true version, and create rights or impose liability on a party based on the story that he or she has chosen to be the “truth.” When a court chooses a particular narrative over another, the chosen narrative becomes the official government truth, and therefore becomes even more powerful as rhetoric in public discourse precisely because that particular narrative now has the sanction and force of the law. In short, law consists of stories given authority and truth by virtue of being told and validated by a judge.
- tells not one race law story but several. Contained in its opinions are narratives about winners and losers, victims and perpetrators, innocence and guilt. This is not to say that the narratives take the same rhetorical form. They do not. Marshall’s narrative is contextual while Scalia’s is abstract. But even Marshall’s narrative reflects a certain degree of formalism. More particularly, his opinion acquiesces in the idea that the relevant location for the story is the city of Richmond. A legal narrator must make choices about the geographic setting in which the story takes place, and those choices are neither neutral nor inconsequential but instead have a dramatic effect on the representation of “reality” in that narrative.
- to this story of Richmond’s history. The Justices thus dispute whether the story of Richmond’s history is legally relevant. For Marshall, however, as the spokesperson for affirmative action, it is a special and powerful narrative. Here Marshall is talking to the same audience as Scalia—the white audience. Unlike Scalia, Marshall cannot merely invite narratives from this audience. He must provide them. These carefully crafted narratives, coupled with the imaginings and narratives of the reader, hopefully can cultivate the empathy necessary to move beyond self-interest. So, Marshall tells the white audience a story that is likely to be neither part of their actual personal experience nor part of their culture’s repertoire of stories. He asks the white reader to hear this story and to empathize. It is a struggle for the reader, and one that may, for some, never succeed. Still, if Marshall fails to tell this story and other stories like it, the white reader is unlikely to tell this...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Forgotten Lessons on Race, Law, and Marriage: The Story of Perez v. Sharp 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The power the Los Angeles county clerk had under California law to block Sylvester and Andrea’s marriage on the basis of race can be understood only by reviewing the history of antimiscegenation laws as a whole. The laws were first enacted in the South and were most common there. But the statutes also became a way for frontier states like California to regulate increasingly complex and dynamic race relations. White supremacy and the legacy of slavery are very much a part of the story of Sylvester and Andrea’s romance.
- This chapter tells the story of , beginning with how Andrea and Sylvester met, fell in love, and came to challenge the California law barring interracial marriage. Their romance is put in context through a brief overview of American antimiscegenation statutes (with a specific focus on California) and a review of early judicial decisions in this area. The story then turns to the case as it entered the judicial system, reviewing the innovative strategies adopted both by Andrea and Sylvester’s attorney and by the State of California in defending its policy of racial exclusion. The California Supreme Court’s decision in was the culmination of this legal battle and the chapter explains how the case divided the justices. Finally, the story closes with the aftermath of
- story, first exploring how the case—despite having all the hallmarks of a landmark decision—came to be ignored and eclipsed by the much later decision in and its place in equal protection law. , provides an important narrative about intimacy and marriage—as well as the right to enjoy both on one’s own terms. But the California decision offers much more. Unique, in part because it highlights early efforts to grapple with notions of colorblindness that are now enshrined in equal protection law, highlights the limitations of the black-white paradigm that is typically employed when considering antimiscegenation laws, and, in doing so, opens additional avenues for exploring such laws and examining the nature of associations among a range of groups.
- In four decades, the story of the plaintiffs in that case—Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving—has become common lore. Articles and textbooks now tell of the couple’s secret marriage and flight from Virginia under fear of prosecution for the crime of being a black woman and a white man in love. We know, too, of their multi-year exile in nearby Washington, D.C., and, finally, of their lawsuit challenging the law that kept them from the life of which they dreamed.
- was not, in fact, the first case to deem antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional. The first post-Reconstruction case to reach such a conclusion came nearly twenty years before The story of the plaintiffs in that case—Andrea Pérez and Sylvester Davis—has, however, rarely been told. Indeed, with only a few exceptions, scholars have not regarded
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Contributors 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Race & Law Stories
- is Professor of Law at University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He received both his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Virginia. Following law school, Professor Ross worked as an associate for Cravath, Swaine & Moore and, later, for Hogan & Hartson. He is the author of
- is Associate Professor of Law at The Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law. He graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School. Prior to his academic career, Professor Tokaji clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and was a staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. He specializes in election law, civil rights, federal courts, and civil procedure. His publications include , 101 Michigan L. Rev. 2409 (2003). In addition to his academic work, Professor Tokaji serves on the boards of the ACLU of Ohio, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Central Ohio, and the Conference of Asian Pacific American Law Faculty. He thanks Morgan Kousser, Rick Pildes, Mike Pitts, as well as participants in the Moritz College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Ohio Legal Scholarship Workshop, and the Race Law Stories Conference at Fordham Law School, for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts of his chapter....
- is the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center and Director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at UH. In 1989–90, he was a Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin, and Special Counsel to then-Chancellor Donna Shalala. In 1997, he held the Mason Ladd Distinguished Visiting Chair at the University of Iowa College of Law. He holds a B.A. (Magna Cum Laude) from the Pontifical College Josephinum, an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Ohio State University, and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. He is the author or co-author of twelve books, including
- is Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, where she directs the Joint Degree Program in Law and American Indian Studies. She graduated from Smith College and Stanford Law School. Prior to teaching at UCLA School of Law, Professor Goldberg was a law clerk for U.S. District Court Judge Robert F. Peckham for the Northern District of California. She presently teaches courses in tribal legal systems, federal Indian law, civil procedure, and conducts the tribal legal development clinic. She has published work on federal Indian law and tribal law, including both the 1982 and 2005 editions of
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Yellow by Law: The Story of Ozawa v. United States 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- is a story about immigration that fits into but also departs from the larger story of Japanese people being “pushed” and “pulled” to America. A significant pull factor for Japanese immigration to the United States in the late 1860s was the labor shortage created by increasing hostility among white Californians toward Chinese immigrants. This hostility culminated in the 1882 Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese immigration and naturalization. A significant push factor was the economic, political, and legal restructuring of Japan—that is, its emerging “modernization.” In the 1880s, as a part of this restructuring, Japan reversed its non-emigration policy and geo-political isolationism. Moreover, the Japanese government promulgated laws designed to remove feudal lords from their lands; as a result, a large percentage of Japanese agricultural laborers were forced off plots that they had tended for years.
- ’s story demonstrates how both courts drew on popular and scientific sources of racial knowledge to conclude that people of Japanese descent were neither white nor Caucasian. More importantly, the chapter shows that these opinions helped to make Ozawa yellow. The inability of Japanese people to become citizens—their unnaturalizability—was not a reality. To put the point slightly differently, Takao Ozawa was not born yellow. He became yellow—at least in part by law.
- The story then turns directly to the Supreme Court’s opinion to explore how it confronted the question of Ozawa’s racial identity. Ozawa had asked the Court to focus on his character and to discard outmoded and inaccurate biological definitions of race. Instead, the Court focused on two key and seemingly disconnected sources of guidance in interpreting racial classifications: science and common knowledge. The chapter explores the interdependency of these concepts in establishing and enforcing the racial parameters of the naturalization laws. The chapter concludes by explaining why the reveals the role that law plays in constructing race—its categories, social meanings and existential realities.
- In the end, the short of Ozawa’s experience in Hawai‘i is that it was both typical and atypical of other Issei in Hawai‘i. It was typical in that he went there to work within the sugar industry, but atypical in that the work he went there to do involved sales and not labor. It was typical in that his story involves living in both Hawai‘i and California, but atypical in that he moved from the latter to the former and not the other way around. It was typical in that his children did not get anything out of Japanese schools, but atypical in that the reason was that he never sent them. It was typical that he was a practicing Christian, but atypical that he did not seem to attach much significance to the embrace of his Japanese heritage as an assimilatory motivation. In this sense, Ozawa’s story intersects with but does not neatly trace the histories of others in his demographic.
- Ozawa’s story could have ended here. After all, the conclusion that Ozawa was not white was unequivocal. Nevertheless, Ozawa determined to push on, appealing his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The next section of the chapter looks at how Ozawa’s case drew the attention of immigrant leaders who were looking for a test case. As lawyers for the Japanese community took over Ozawa’s representation, the arguments were shaped to build on pre-existing civil right initiatives to secure the right to naturalize.
- Open Chapter
Halftitle Page 1 result
Race Law Stories 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- RACE LAW STORIES
- Chapter 6: Yellow by Law: The Story of Ozawa v. United States
- Chapter 10: Forgotten Lessons on Race, Law, and Marriage: The Story of Perez v. Sharp
- Chapter 2: Classical Racialism, Justice Story, and Margaret Morgan’s Journey from Freedom to Slavery: The Story of Prigg v. Pennsylvania
- Chapter 1: The Tribal Struggle for Indian Sovereignty: The Story of the Cherokee Cases
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Dodging Responsibility: The Story of Hirabayashi v. United States 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The internment cases often are taught as proof that the rule of law can work itself pure by correcting errors made by a few bad apples—as , as the coram nobis opinions corrected the wartime cases, and so on. But more critical examination uncovers a counter-story of a judiciary that has concealed its transgressions through deft legal exegesis and manipulative reasoning. That counter-symbol—
- By finding prejudice as a matter of fact (even though, as a matter of law, this was not deemed a necessary element), the Ninth Circuit adopted the official story that the wartime Supreme Court was an innocent, misled by duplicitous lawyers. The Court did nothing wrong; it was merely tricked. In the 1940s
- Four decades later comes a very different story. Indeed, the successful Japanese American redress movement of the 1970s and 1980s is as uplifting as the 1940s internment is depressing. The executive branch apologized, unearthed at the National Archives, which demonstrated the lack of military necessity for the internment. At first glance, the story of redress
- But, this exculpatory story is revisionist.
- coram nobis case had found prejudice on the evacuation issue. In other words, the Supreme Court would have vacated this conviction if only it had the full story. The Ninth Circuit heartily affirmed this finding for the following reasons.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. The Tribal Struggle for Indian Sovereignty: The Story of the Cherokee Cases 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the failure of American constitutionalism and the operation of what contemporary scholars have come to call “Conquest by Law” or “Genocide at Law.” A careful review of the stories of provides ample proof of what the Cherokees’ storytellers have maintained since that era: Law is a double-edged sword whose blade always seems ready to find and cut away at the soft spots of Indian Nationhood. And yet, the Cherokees and other Indians continue to play within the white man’s law because, for many purposes, the courts are the only game in town.
- As William Wirt feared, the Supreme Court found against the Cherokee Nation. Of the seven Justices, four rejected the Cherokees’ jurisdictional position (John Marshall, William Johnson, John McLean, and Henry Baldwin), two upheld the Cherokee position (Smith Thompson and Joseph Story), and one was absent (Gabriel Duvall). In a sense, the Cherokee decision might best be described as a two, two, two split, with Marshall and McLean deciding that the Court did not have original jurisdiction but that the Cherokees were entities with specific rights. Those rights and the definitions of tribal nations were the most significant aspects of the opinions and remain crucial in interpreting American Indian law. Baldwin and Johnson decided that the Cherokee were not a state and had very few, if any, rights. Story and Thompson, on the other hand, decided that the Cherokees were entitled to original jurisdiction as a foreign state with independent legal and political rights. In another, broader...
- To the Cherokee people, these cases mean even more. Knowing the story of the To non-Indians, these cases are remembered primarily for the response they purportedly elicited from President Andrew Jackson: “Marshall has made his law, now let him enforce it.”
- tell this story from the perspective of Cherokee tribal leaders. Thomas Jefferson had earlier spoken to a Cherokee delegation in Washington about the regularity of law, and even earlier, George Washington had talked to Cherokee delegates about Magna Carta and the Rule of Law.
- remain in the hearts and minds of all Cherokee people. It is these stories, climaxing in the Trail of Tears and a bloody and long-lasting tribal civil war, that I remember my father telling. Cherokees were rounded up from their homes and driven to stockades to await the military guards assigned to accompany them as they were removed from their historic homeland and sent under armed guard west of the Mississippi to the new Indian Territory. To this day, it is said that every Cherokee knows where his or her ancestral family stood in addressing the difficult questions growing from the failure to honor the Cherokee victory before the Supreme Court. For, in truth, the ultimate, pragmatic victory belonged to Georgia and to President Jackson. This is the case in which Jackson is purported to have issued his famous challenge to the judiciary—“Marshall has made his law, let him enforce it.” ...law; Jackson had the troops. In historical perspective, it is as if President Eisenhower had...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Jim Crow, Mexican Americans, and the Anti–Subordination Constitution: The Story of Hernandez v. Texas 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Law Stories
- “No One Can Arrest Me”: The Story of Gregorio Cortez
- note 3, at App. V. Additional facts about the arrest and trial are taken from the contemporaneous news stories that appeared on the front page of the
- , La Prensa (San Antonio), June 15, 1960, at 1. There was one published story on the argument. Sarah McLendon,
- His family scraped together the resources to hire Johnny Herrera, one of the very few experienced Mexican–American lawyers in the Houston area. Herrera had graduated from the South Texas College of Law, a freestanding law school in Houston, and at the time the only law school in what was then Texas’ largest city. He had worked a number of jobs, gone to law school at night, and driven a cab until he became a licensed attorney in 1943. Herrera had carved out a general civil practice, but increasingly had taken on criminal cases, in large part because there was such a need and there were so few Mexican–American lawyers in Texas. At the time, the Houston area had fewer than half a dozen Mexican–American attorneys, and Herrera took two of them, James deAnda and Arnulfo Azios, into his firm. James deAnda had graduated from Texas A & M University and the University of Texas Law School when it was still a segregated institution. DeAnda later speculated that he was able to matriculate only...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Birthright Citizenship, Immigration, and the U.S. Constitution: The Story of United States v. Wong Kim Ark 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This chapter tells the story of this largely overlooked Supreme Court case by discussing its origins and explaining its importance. As will become clear, the importance of is directly linked to the divisive debate over race, immigration, and citizenship in late nineteenth-century America. As a matter of formal law, is as important as the case itself. Indeed, the ways in which the principle of birthright citizenship was applied to and used by Chinese Americans, as well as the contemporary resonance of the case, help us to understand the impact of law on everyday people, hierarchies within American citizenship, current debates about immigration, and how history and memory are both forgotten and remembered. Part of the aim of this chapter is to remember the life history of Wong Kim Ark himself. Buried in that history is a story about how American identity is negotiated both inside and outside the boundaries of formal citizenship.
- Laws Harsh as Tigers: Chinese Immigrants and the Shaping of Modern Immigration Law
- Race Matters: Immigration Law and Policy Scholarship, Law in the Ivory Tower, and the Legal Indifference of the Race Critique,
- Prior to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, there was neither a trained force of government officials and interpreters nor the bureaucratic machinery with which to enforce federal immigration laws. With the passage of the Act in 1882, the United States Customs Service, a department with no previous experience enforcing immigration laws, was called upon to enforce the exclusion laws. The Customs Service maintained jurisdiction over Chinese immigration cases for the first eighteen years of the exclusion era. In 1900, Congress transferred the administration of the exclusion laws to the Commissioner–General of Immigration (under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Treasury), but the everyday enforcement of the law still remained with the immigration officials in the Customs Service. Finally, in 1903, all Chinese immigration matters were placed under the control of the Bureau of Immigration and its parent department, the newly created Department of Commerce and Labor.
- By the time Wong made a second trip to China in 1895, the United States was quickly moving towards greater immigration restriction, eventually affecting American-born Chinese like him. Zealous immigration officials and supporters of Chinese exclusion successfully campaigned to broaden the scope of the laws. In 1892, the Geary Act renewed the exclusion of laborers for another ten years and required all Chinese residents to register with the federal government for a certificate of residence (a precursor to the contemporary “green card”). In 1902, the exclusion of Chinese was extended to the newly-acquired American territories of Hawai‘i and the Philippines. In 1904, the law was renewed without any time limit and remained in effect until its repeal in As Wong’s case makes clear, the exclusion laws were designed to regulate immigrants, but the government’s enforcement procedures extended to all Chinese, including those citizens who were born in the United States and traveled abroad.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Intersectional Bias and the Courts: The Story of Rogers v. American Airlines 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- out of a mismatch between the aspirations of law, flowing from a victim’s perspective, and the on-the-ground application of legal rules. Intersectional analysis is but one tool among many which reveals the failure of anti-discrimination law to draw appropriate distinctions between those consequences of discrimination that can be remedied by law and those that cannot. Law sets a low level of protection—one that often operates as hardly any protection at all. The result is that people are protected against an old, pervasive, overt, and increasingly rare regime of discrimination, while a new and often equally effective regime continues to operate beyond legal scrutiny. Plaintiffs like Renee Rodgers find their everyday stories of discrimination go unheeded because they do not fit into the rigid and unresponsive categories of an anti-discrimination law that identifies with the status quo, rather than with social justice.
- Courts first dealt with intersectional claims involving race and gender bias brought by women of color. Accordingly, many, though not all, of the cases examined here involve the intersection of race and gender as it affects this group. For this reason, the story of
- The logic of the intersectional critique is difficult to refute; it is supported by a substantial body of scholarship in law and across academic disciplines. The legal academic debate was initiated by women of color who challenged the ways in which problems arising at the intersection of race and gender are marginalized in law, feminism, and antiracist politics. This early scholarship also made clear that the intersectional critique extends to other forms of bias, including class and sexual orientation, to any intersectional group, and to any area of law. Subsequent legal scholarship has developed analyses that take account of multiple systems of subordination, the ways in which they interact, and the bodies of law that support them.
- Proceedings of the 1999 Annual Meeting, Association of American Law Schools Section on Employment Discrimination Law: Is There a Disconnect Between EEO Law and the Workplace?
- A search conducted on February 15, 2007 in the Journals and Law Reviews database of Westlaw indicates that Professor Rosen’s article has been cited 23 times in law reviews. By contrast, his follow-up article in the has been cited only eight times in law reviews.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. “The Constitution Follows the Flag … but Doesn’t Quite Catch Up with It”: The Story of Downes v. Bidwell 33 results (showing 5 best matches)
- opinion. My aim here is threefold: (1) to provide a brief description of the effects of Spanish colonial rule on Puerto Rico; (2) to set forth the circumstances leading up to the Spanish American War; and (3) to illustrate how the outcome of that war helped to shape America’s identity as a colonial power. Next, the chapter tells the story behind the opinion itself, showing how the law reflected an uneasy balance between declaring the island to be both a U.S. possession, and one with a separate, not entirely “American” population. As this story and its aftermath will reveal, and elaborated in these later opinions remains good law today. The resiliency of decisions that signaled the rise of the United States as an imperial power is then explained by turning to the normative ideas about race, citizenship, and empire that lay behind the Insular Cases.
- note 4, at 147–48 (recounting the same story).
- Puerto Rico Laws Annotated
- Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated
- U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The section continues as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. The Song Remains the Same: The Story of Whren v. United States 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Stories, the Statistics, and the Law: Why “Driving While Black” Matters
- Nothing appears to have come of the fact that Metropolitan Police Department vice officers Efrain Soto and Homer Littlejohn stopped Brown and Whren in violation of departmental regulations. Both officers continued serving on the vice squad for many years. However, their stories are more surprising than those of Whren and Brown.
- The story behind
- Despite the claims of neutrality, profiling will intuitively strike many observers as contrary to the law. Law enforcement measures based on alleged group propensities for criminal conduct, such as racial profiling, appear to run afoul of the U.S. Constitution, which is generally premised on the view that individualized suspicion is necessary for police action. Racial profiling also seems to run counter to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.
- We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. The Heirs of Brown: The Story of Grutter v. Bollinger 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the lawsuit that challenged affirmative action in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School. Before the litigation began, the federal courts were deeply divided over the legitimacy of weighing race in deciding whether to offer applicants a seat in the entering class of a college or university. When the lawsuit was filed, the parties took dramatically different positions on whether affirmative action was a blight on individual fairness or a boon to racial justice. Intense disagreements about the legitimacy of affirmative action in turn led to split decisions and judicial in-fighting. Even the United States Supreme Court’s ruling ultimately could not resolve the controversy. is the story of a jurisprudence of fragmentation, fraught with the ambiguity and ambivalence born of unresolved conflict.
- In suing the University of Michigan Law School, CIR confronted worthy adversaries. The President of Michigan, Lee Bollinger, had previously served as dean of the law school. A graduate of Columbia, Bollinger specialized in First Amendment doctrine after clerking on the United States Supreme Court and joining the Michigan faculty. As dean of the law school, he had overseen efforts in the early 1990s to revamp the admissions policy to ensure compliance with Jeffrey Lehman, who succeeded Bollinger as dean, had a similarly distinguished record. Himself a graduate of the law school, Lehman was a former Supreme Court clerk who began his teaching career at Michigan. There, he became a specialist in tax and welfare law. Before becoming dean, Lehman had served on the committee that developed the new admissions standards.
- Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment at 14, Grutter v. Bollinger, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (No. 97–CV–75928); Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment at 10–14, Grutter v. Bollinger, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (No. 97–CV–75928).
- Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, note 65, at 17; Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment,
- Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, note 65, at 39–41; Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. What’s Race Got to Do With It?: The Story of Morton v. Mancari 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
- ’s ready acceptance of preferential treatment seemed at odds with that movement, and some of the opponents of affirmative action came to view Indian law, and federal Indian law classifications through the affirmative action lens was magnified by the fact that Native Americans or American Indians were typically included among the groups benefited by conventional state and federal affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting, along with African Americans and Latinos. The upshot of this conflation of Indian law with affirmative action has been an effort by affirmative action opponents to confine or to overturn example, the sponsor of the Native American Equal Rights Act, a measure that would have repealed Indian preferences in employment and contracting, announced that most Americans, believing in a colorblind society, “would be surprised … to learn that non-Indians may be lawfully discriminated against under what are known as ‘Indian preference laws.’ ” ...laws was not...
- , Am. Indian L. Newsl. (Indian Law Center, Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Law), Sept. 27, 1972, at 232.
- standard to state law exempting only Native American practitioners of peyote religion from state-controlled substances law).
- could spread beyond the BIA, encompassing even some laws that worked to the detriment of individual Indians. In , the Court reviewed a principle of federal Indian law making tribal jurisdiction exclusive and thus denying states jurisdiction over domestic relations matters involving only tribal Indians living in Indian country. , the detriment to the individual Indian as a result of special federal Indian laws was even graver. Under the federal Major Crimes Act, an Indian who killed a non-Indian on a reservation was subject to the federal law of homicide, which included a felony-murder rule. In contrast, a non-Indian who killed a non-Indian under identical circumstances would be subject to state homicide law, which in Antelope’s case meant no state felony-murder rule. But the Court again relied on
- standard of review had spread far beyond the BIA, encompassing federal laws unrelated to Indian representation in the governance of their communities, as well as laws disadvantaging individual Indians and state laws effectuating federal policies. Not long after a preference for Indians to receive scholarships or internships to prepare to teach in Indian communities or to train for professions such as law;
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 1 result
- This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: June 4th, 2008
- ISBN: 9781599410012
- Subject: Race and the Law
- Series: Law Stories
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This publication brings to life well-known and not-so-well known legal opinions that address slavery, Native American conquest, Chinese exclusion, Jim Crow, Japanese American internment, immigration, affirmative action, voting rights, and employment discrimination. Each story goes beyond legal opinions to explore the historical context of the cases and the worlds of the ordinary people and larger-than-life personalities who drove the litigation process. The book’s multiracial and interdisciplinary approach makes it useful for courses on race and the law and Critical Race Theory both inside and outside the law school. Each story illuminates the role the law has played in both creating and combating racial inequality.