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. Case: PALMER ET AL. v. THOMPSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, ET AL. No. 107
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
403 U.S. 217; 91 S. Ct. 1940; 29 L. Ed. 2d 438; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 27 December 14, 1970, Argued
June 14, 1971, Decided
This case has a similar background to those of the assignment. The original action is based in 1962 in the city of Jackson, Mississippi. In that lawsuit, Clark v. Thompson, 206 F. Supp. 539 (SD Miss. 1962), the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document