In Part 7, Article 13, what did the Chinese Exclusion Act put into place, who was directly affected, and what was the stated reason for the act?

In Part 7, Article 14, which question does Elk v. Wilkins (1884) put before the Court and what did this case reveal about the nature of citizenship in the United States?

In Part 7, Article 15, which constitutional issue does Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) put before the Court and on what grounds does the Court reject Plessy's proposition that the racial makeup of public space and services should be regulated by the government?

In Part 7, Article 16, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in 1923 but was not passed until 1972. The ERA did not become part of the Constitution, however, because it was not ratified by the required number of states by the July 1982 ratification deadline. Could the Equal Rights Amendment still become law today?

In Part 7, Article 17, the question that this case put before the Court is whether Bhagat Singh Thind, "a high caste Hindu, of full Indian blood, born at Amritsar, Punjab, India," is a white person. The Court needs to determine whether Thind is white in order to assess whether he is eligible for naturalization. What did the Court say about the meaning of the term "Caucasian" and what did the Court decide about Thind's appeal? Why?

In Part 7, Article 18, writing the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Warren states: "Minors of the Negro race . . . seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. . .. They had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race". What is the plaintiffs' contention regarding the nature of the segregated school system in the United States and how does the Supreme Court determine that "separate but equal" does in fact violate the U.S. Constitution?

In Part 7, Article 19, what did the ruling in Roe v. Wade establish and how did the ruling support the opinion that terminating a pregnancy is ultimately a decision between a person and their physician?

In Part 7, Article 20, why might some people feel the Supreme Court ruling in McCleskey v. Kemp solidified covert racial bias in the judicial system? What part of the Court's dissenting opinion best addresses McCleskey's claim that racial bias should be addressed in criminal cases?

In Part 7, Article 21, how did the Supreme Court rule in Shelby County v. Holder? Which part of the Court's dissenting opinion best addresses Representative John Lewis's statement in the Editor's Note, "Today, the Supreme Court stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most effective pieces of legislation Congress has passed in the last 50 years"?

In Part 7, Article 22, what did the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges establish? What are the four principles that are named to show that this decision is constitutional?

In Part 7, Article 23, what was the fundamental ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization? What was the Supreme Court's primary basis for overturning Roe v. Wade? How did Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion hint at future Supreme Court decisions? The dissenting opinion of Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan makes it very clear that they reject a strictly Constitutionalist interpretation in matters such as Roe v. Wade or Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Describe the form and arguments that rejection takes.

References summarys articles:

13. The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) (p. 533)

The Chinese Exclusion Act suspended all migration to the United States of Chinese skilled and unskilled workers, as well as Chinese people employed in mining. This excerpt from the act details the restrictions of the act and the consequences for violating, or participating in violating, the guidelines.

14. Elk v. Wilkins (1884) (p. 536)

John Elk, a Native American who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up residence among whites, was denied the right to vote in Omaha, Nebraska, on the grounds that he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court considered the question of whether Elk had been made a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment and decided against him.

15. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (p. 538)

Plessy v. Ferguson tested the trend toward "separate but equal" laws passed in the South to institutionalize the practices of segregation. The Supreme Court pronounced the law constitutional and mandated separate but equal accommodations for the "white and colored races," which helped maintain this inequitable system.

16. Equal Rights Amendment (Proposed 1923) (p. 541)

Three years after the Nineteenth Amendment became law, the National Women's Party proposed an Equal Rights Amendment that would outlaw sex discrimination in areas beyond the right to vote. Feminist activists lobbied for decades in support of the ERA, and it finally passed Congress in 1972, but it was never ratified. Saddled with a deadline that was not part of the original proposal, it fell three states short of ratification when time ran out in 1982.

17. U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923) (p. 542)

In this case, Thind, an Indian immigrant, argued that he was racially Caucasian and thus eligible for citizenship. The ruling stated that it is the common understanding of "white persons," and not a scientific racial classification of Caucasian, that determines eligibility for citizenship. As a matter of familiar observation, Thind appeared to be racially different; as such, his appeal was rejected.

18. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) (p. 545)

This case made segregation in public schools illegal, finding that "such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws."

19. Roe v. Wade (1973) (p. 549)

This decision legalized a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. The decision was based on the right to privacy grounded in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

20. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) (p. 552)

In this ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a death sentence despite compelling statistical evidence that Georgia's application of capital punishment was infused with systemic racial bias. The justices did not disagree with the robust statistical evidence but rejected McCleskey's ability to make a claim of discrimination in the absence of proof of intentional bias in his specific case. The ruling severely narrowed the ability of plaintiffs to make equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice William Brennan argued, "we remain imprisoned by the past as long as we deny its influence in the present."

21. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) (p. 556)

This decision overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and thereby opened the floodgates to a wide range of voter suppression laws and practices. The 1965 law required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to seek federal approval ("preclearance") before enacting new voting regulations. In Shelby, the Court struck down Section 4 of the 1965 law that provided a formula for determining the jurisdictions required to seek preclearance. "Our country has changed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, arguing that some of the act's "extraordinary measures" were no longer justified. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that dispensing with the preclearance requirement for jurisdictions with a history of discrimination is like "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

22. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (p. 561)

This 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. The decision states that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and its Equal Protection Clause.

23. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) (p. 566)

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling. In doing so, they reversed a half century of reproductive rights and put other constitutional rights in jeopardy (such as rights surrounding birth control, sexuality, and marriage). The impact of Dobbs has been wide-ranging. Several states already had "trigger" laws in place, which immediately went into effect without a vote, and many more moved to further restrict or ban abortions.