Golden V. Biscayne Bay Yacht Club Summary

Summary of Facts
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."A week later, the state passes a new law that reads
Issues
Is the closing other facilities retaliatory based on the lawsuit.
Can the plaintiff proving that the closings were unconstitutional.

Applicable Law
In the case of Golden v. Biscayne Bay Yacht Club, 521 F.2d 344 the court affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiffs, African-American applicants and Jewish applicants, in the discrimination action brought against defendant private club under the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes. the Court has never attempted to formulate
Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S., at 378, 87 S. Ct., at 1632. Id., quoting Burton, 365 U.S., at 722, 81 S. Ct., at 860. This is the task for the District Court .Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 1961, 365 U.S. 715, 722, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. Ed. 2d 45; accord, Reitman v. Mulkey, 1962, 387 U.S. 369, 87 S. Ct. 1627, 18 L. Ed. 2d 830. We have but recently taken cognizance of this in Greco v. Orange Memorial Hospital Corp., 5 Cir., 1975, 513 F.2d 873 in which the Court found that there existed no state action in a non-racial discrimination case. There the plaintiff, a physician, had been prohibited from performing elective abortions in a hospital operated by a private charitable corporation, but leased from the county, received tax exemptions, and received some federal. In finding which is necessary for private conduct to be subjected to Fourteenth Amendment sanctions when other types of constitutional violations have occurred.The facts of the instant case also differ from the recent decision in Solomon v. The Miami Woman's Club 359 F. Supp. 41 (S.D.Fla.1973), in which this court held that the particular state lease to a state headquarters did not contain sufficient state involvement to clothe the patently discriminatory
Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701Court upholding the districts' school assignment plans based on race were reversed, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings. Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S. Ct. 145, 1 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1956) (per curiam) (buses); Holmes v. Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879, 76 S. Ct. 141, 100 L. Ed. 776 (1955) (per curiam) (golf courses); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877, 76 S. Ct. 133, 100 L. Ed. 774 (1955) (per curiam) (beaches). But with reference to schools, the effect of the legal wrong proved most difficult to correct. To remedy the wrong, school districts that had been segregated by law had no choice, whether under court supervision or pursuant to voluntary desegregation efforts, but to resort to extraordinary measures including individual student and teacher assignment to schools based on