• Location, Hours & Parking
  • Students
  • Teachers
  • Glossary
  • Transportation Grants
Schedule a tour today!
facebook
twitter
email
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Board and Officers
    • Teacher Advisory Council
    • Supporters
    • The Courthouse
    • The Federal Courts
  • How to Visit
    • Location, Hours & Parking
    • Photo Gallery Tour
    • Schedule a Tour
  • Our Programs
    • Constitution Day and Citizenship Day
    • Summer Teacher Institute
    • Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
    • Spring Art Competition
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Program Photos
  • Transportation Grants
  • Student Center
    • Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
    • Student Center Landing Page
    • The Role of the Federal Courts
    • Organization of the Federal Courts
    • How Courts Work
    • Landmark Cases
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Online Exhibit
  • Educator Center
    • Summer Teacher Institute
    • Educator Center Main Page
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Online Exhibit
    • Online Learning Resources
    • Comparing State and Federal Courts
    • Law Day 2025
  • Contact
  • About Us
    • Our Mission
    • Board and Officers
    • Teacher Advisory Council
    • Supporters
    • The Courthouse
    • The Federal Courts
  • How to Visit
    • Location, Hours & Parking
    • Photo Gallery Tour
    • Schedule a Tour
  • Our Programs
    • Constitution Day and Citizenship Day
    • Summer Teacher Institute
    • Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
    • Spring Art Competition
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Program Photos
  • Transportation Grants
  • Student Center
    • Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
    • Student Center Landing Page
    • The Role of the Federal Courts
    • Organization of the Federal Courts
    • How Courts Work
    • Landmark Cases
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Online Exhibit
  • Educator Center
    • Summer Teacher Institute
    • Educator Center Main Page
    • Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
    • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Online Exhibit
    • Online Learning Resources
    • Comparing State and Federal Courts
    • Law Day 2025
  • Contact

Civil Rights and Equal Protection

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase “…all men are created equal,” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.  However, it can be found in the earlier document; the Declaration of Independence.  This tells us that equality was a priority in this country, even before the American Revolution.

In 1868, equality was mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  In an early court case about equality, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote about the purpose of the 14th Amendment.  In the words of Justice Strong in 1879 –

The 14th Amendment …(is)…one of a series of constitutional provisions having a common purpose, namely to secure to a recently emancipated race, which had been held in slavery through many generations, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy. (Strauder v. West Virginia)

Ironically, application of the 14th Amendment by the federal courts lead to the infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, allowing “separate but equal” facilities for different races, otherwise known as segregation.  This decision has been overruled, making segregation by race illegal.  In the 1954 landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education, the court interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that:

“Separate” can never truly be “equal.”

The 14th Amendment has been applied in many courts cases in which a law or policy requires differential treatment according to race, as well as national origin, immigration status, and religion.  Several examples cases are outlined below for further study.

 

Case Studies

 

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954

  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Case History
  • Black students and families in several states sued for denial of equal schools. In each of the school districts, black students and white students were required to attend separate public schools. Black students were prohibited from attending schools designated for white students, even if the school was closer to their home.

  • Does segregation by race of public school students violate the 14th Amendment?

  • Several cases about segregation in public schools began in separate states; Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, as well as the District of Columbia. Most of the students and families suing the school districts for equal treatment lost in the lower courts. The lower courts were following the precedent set in Plessy, and said the schools did not violate the Constitution by providing separate schools. When the parties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their cases, the court consolidated them into one case. The name came from the first listed alphabetically – Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

  • Decision
  • Quote
  • Learn More
  • The U.S. Supreme Court issued two opinions. In 1954, Brown I dealt with the constitutionality of public school segregation. The U.S. Supreme Court found unanimously that segregation of students by race, and the doctrine of “separate but equal,” violated the 14th Amendment.
    In 1955, Brown II ordered the remedy, or solution, for solving the problem of segregated schools. This decision, also unanimous, instructed school districts to stop segregation at the local level promptly, and with “all deliberate speed.”

  • The Supreme Court said “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated … are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.” by author of opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren

    • The Oyez Project- Brown I
    • The Oyez Project – Brown II
    • The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court – Brown I
    • The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court – Brown II
    • The official versions of the opinions can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Brown I – Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).  Brown II – Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)


Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948

  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Case History
  • White home owners in a neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, entered into a private agreement called a restrictive covenant. This agreement barred the sale of homes within their neighborhood to African Americans. In 1945, Mr. and Mrs. Shelley, an African-American couple, moved to St. Louis and purchased a home on Labadie Avenue, in violation of the agreement. Mr. and Mrs. Kraemer, a white couple who lived on Labadie, sued the Shelleys.

  • Does restricting home sales according to race violate the 14th Amendment?

  • The Kraemers sued the Shelleys in the state court system of Missouri. The Missouri trial court allowed the Shelleys to stay. The Kraemers appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying that the restrictive covenant was legal and that the Shelleys had to give up ownership of the home. The Shelleys then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

  • Decision
  • Quote
  • Learn More
  • The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that enforcement of restrictive covenants violates the 14th Amendment. If the state court or state law enforcement officials attempted to enforce the restrictive covenant, they would be denying the Shelley’s right to equal protection of the laws, and therefore violating the U.S. Constitution.

  • The Supreme Court said “It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the 14th Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition … of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee.” by author of opinion, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson

    • The Oyez Project
    • The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
    • See the house on Labadie here:
    • The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)


Loving v. Virginia, 1967

  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Case History
  • The state of Virginia had a statute forbidding interracial marriage. In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving traveled from Virginia to Washington D.C. to get married. Mildred was a black woman, and Richard was a white man. When they returned to their home state of Virginia, they were arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to serve jail time.

  • Does prohibiting a marriage based on the race of the couple violate the 14th Amendment?

  • The state of Virginia pursued criminal charges against the Lovings. They asked the state court to dismiss the charges, stating the Virginia law was unconstitutional. They lost in the trial court, and they then appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, which also upheld the law. The Lovings then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

  • Decision
  • Quote
  • Learn More
  • The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the Virginia law against interracial marriage to be in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court could find no legitimate purpose for the law, other than racial discrimination.

  • The Supreme Court said “The 14th Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State. ” by author of opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren.

    • The Oyez Project
    • The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
    • The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).


Civil Rights and Equal Protection

Directions: Click START to begin the Student Challenge. Use the ARROW to move through the questions. Check your RESULTS at the end.
Start
Congratulations - you have completed Civil Rights and Equal Protection. You scored %%SCORE%% out of %%TOTAL%%. Your performance has been rated as %%RATING%%
Your answers are highlighted below.
Question 1
Which case combined cases regarding public school segregation from several states?
A
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
B
Shelley v. Kraemer
C
Loving v. Virginia
Question 2
A law against interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional in which case?
A
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
B
Shelley v. Kraemer
C
Loving v. Virginia
Question 3
Which case prevented states from restricting people of certain races from buying homes?
A
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
B
Shelley v. Kraemer
C
Loving v. Virginia
Question 4
The idea of “separate but equal” facilities was overruled, making segregation illegal, in which case?
A
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
B
Shelley v. Kraemer
C
Loving v. Virginia
Once you are finished, click the button below. Any items you have not completed will be marked incorrect. Get Results
There are 4 questions to complete.
←
List
→
Return
Shaded items are complete.
1234End
Return
You have completed
questions
question
Your score is
Correct
Wrong
Partial-Credit
You have not finished your quiz. If you leave this page, your progress will be lost.
Correct Answer
You Selected
Not Attempted
Final Score on Quiz
Attempted Questions Correct
Attempted Questions Wrong
Questions Not Attempted
Total Questions on Quiz
Question Details
Results
Date
Score
Hint
Time allowed
minutes
seconds
Time used
Answer Choice(s) Selected
Question Text
All done
Need more practice!
Keep trying!
Not bad!
Good work!
Perfect!

Next Page →


A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.
  • Why Study Landmark Cases?
  • Your 1st Amendment Rights
  • Your 4th Amendment Rights
  • Civil Rights and Equal Protection
  • The Power of Judicial Review
  • Cases From Missouri

Student Center Quick Nav


This website is made possible by the generous support of Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
Copyright © 2019 The Judicial Learning Center. All rights reserved.
Site design by phoenixdsgn.com
***External links are provided throughout the site for informational purposes only.
The Judicial Learning Center is not responsible for content on external sites.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}