The Supreme Court held these actions violated equal protection. There, city voters repealed a fair housing ordinance that banned discrimination in the sale or lease of real property and passed an amendment that created a more burdensome process for minorities to seek such protection against discrimination. The Supreme Court first employed an equal protection political structure analysis in Hunter v. According to the court, that restructured the political process by placing an unfair burden on minorities in their effort to seek beneficial legislation – even though such legislation may be offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that, since Proposal 2 amended the state’s constitution to repeal all state racial preference programs, it would take another constitutional amendment to reinstate them. In the Sixth Circuit’s view, a constitutional amendment that prohibits discrimination and bans all racial preference programs unconstitutionally restructures the political process. But the Sixth Circuit relied upon the equal protection political structure doctrine to hold that Michigan’s ban on unequal treatment denies members of certain races equal protection of the laws. A similar law in California has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit, twice, and by the California Supreme Court. In 2006, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 which amends the Michigan constitution to prohibit the state and its public universities from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. In Schuette, proponents of racial preferences challenged the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Proposal 2. ![]() While you’re at it, follow PLF, too: that, you may want to know more about Schuette v. You can get the latest updates by following on Twitter. PLF staff attorney, Joshua Thompson, will be there for us tweeting live. But you won’t have to be at the Court in Washington D.C. Tomorrow, the justices should have many interesting and difficult questions on this issue. According to that court, Michigan must forever allow individuals to seek preferential treatment based on their race. But that’s not what the Sixth Circuit held when it invalidated Michigan’s ban on discrimination in any form. In other words, we are all equal before the law. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The issue in that case is whether the Equal Protection Clause guarantees individuals the right to unequal – or preferential – treatment. ![]() Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Schuette v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |