The legislature of the fictitious state of Xanadu passes a law that states "All people are welcome at all state-run swimming, beach, and golf facilities, as long as they are white. Non-whites may not use any of those facilities."

Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.

A week later, the state passes a new law that reads "Because we don't believe that we are capable of managing integrated swimming, beach, and golf facilities, we are hereby closing all such state-run facilities." Brenda sues again in federal court, asking the court to rule that the closure of the facilities is likewise unconstitutional. Brenda argues that even though the closure itself is not discriminatory since it applies equally to everyone, the closure should nevertheless be prevented because it was obviously done for a purpose that implies discrimination against non-whites.

You are a clerk in the federal district court for the District of Xanadu. Please find one Federal case from any jurisdiction that would be very relevant to apply to this scenario. Summarize the facts of the case, discuss the Court's reasoning, and explain why you agree or disagree with the Court's ruling in terms of the 14th Amendment. Also, explain how that case could be applied to our scenario.

Answer and explanations

Palmer v Thompson (1971)

Facts

A closure of all the public swimming pools and not an integration of the swimming pools. A suit was brought against the city by black people under the Fourteenth Amendments that provide for equal protection as well as the Thirteenth Amendment basing on the grounds that the actions of the city created a slavery incident.

Held: No violation of Fourteenth Amendment nor the Thirteenth Amendment

Reasoning: The motivation of closure was not segregation

I do not agree with the decision

Can be applied in our case because the facilities were later closed because of difficulties in running an integrated facility.

Step-by-step explanation

Palmer v Thompson (1971)

Facts

In Mississippi Jackson city, there was a closure of all the public swimming pools and not an integration of the swimming pools. Four of the five swimming pools were closed and surrender its lease with respect to the fifth one to the lessor. The lessor of the fifth swimming pool continued operating the pool on a private basis as well as on a discriminatory basis. A suit was brought against the city by black people under the Fourteenth Amendments that provide for equal protection as well as the Thirteenth Amendment basing on the grounds that the actions of the city created a slavery incident. No constitutional violation was found in the lower courts. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that closing the pool to all people did not entail a denial of equal protection to the black people as provided under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is because no conspiracy was presented in court to show that the pool was to be segregated. The argument for equal protection to the effect that the motivation of the action of the city was avoiding the racial integration was rejected. The court was of the opinion that substantial evidence was in support of the claim by the city that the motivation to close the pool was to maintain peace and order as well as operating the pools economically on an integrated basis was not possible.

I do not agree with the decision and the reasoning of the court in this case. The reason for this is that despite the fact that the motivation of the pools were not to discriminate people, the continual operation of the fifth pool on a segregated basis was encouraging racial segregation hence leading to inequality in society. Any form of discrimination that emanates from any action should not be condoned in society because it would breed inequality that is against the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution that provides for equal protection.

The case could be applied to our scenario to the effect that the state operated facilities were at first closed for non white people whereby the white people were the only ones allowed to use them. Afterwards, the city stated that the management of integrated facilities was not possible hence the closure of these facilities. In this case therefore the court would follow the Supreme Court in the case of Palmer v Thompson to the effect that the motivation of closure of the facilities was not segregation but rather the impossibility of running an integrated swimming pool or facilities hence no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.