Use the format discussed in class to summarize cases. (Facts; Question; Holding/Rule; Reasoning). Discuss how these cases deal with regime interests and/or hierarchies.
Women and Law Summer 2019
Women and the Law, Summer 2019, Hunter College
Use the format discussed in class to summarize cases. (Facts; Question; Holding/Rule; Reasoning). Discuss how these cases deal with regime interests and/or hierarchies.
Bradwell V Illinois was a Supreme Court case in 1873 which confirmed a law which prevented women from practicing law.
Facts/Question: Myra Bradwell submitted an application to the Supreme Court of Illinois to practice law. Her application was denied on the basis that she was a married women. Bradwell argued that, based on the 14th amendment, pursuing the profession of one’s choice is a privilege of American citizens.
Holding/Rule: The court upheld the law which prohibits women from practicing law.
Reasoning: The court claimed civil law has created a dividend in the roles of men and women. The court explains that the reason this is true is because gender roles are a part of nature. The idea of a women pursuing a career along with a husband goes against those rules of nature, and thus was prohibited.
This court decision is an example of the court ruling in the interest of the regime. The United States government, past and present, is run by wealthy men. Women pursuing careers directly challenges the power of the individuals inside the regime. This is because the only way to get represented in the United States is to have social capital. By keeping women locked inside the home, policy makers are able to ignore the interests of women. Additionally, women pursuing careers, especially in law, makes elected officials nervous of their own jobs. In order to run for office, one needs a disposable income and experience in the workplace. Limiting the upward mobility of women is a method of preventing them from entering the public-sector. This way of thinking reintrenches the gender hierarchy.
I thought that this case was really interesting to read about. It is deeply upsetting that women were once not allowed to practice the profession of their choosing. I also think it was really interesting that the court argued that of all privileges guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the court did not believe that the right to practice law or any profession was one of these privileges. I agree with your analysis that keeping women out of government and professions in the law allows the US to ignore the needs and issues of women. This is why it is so crucial for more women and minorities to become elected officials so that their needs can be properly met by the people who truly understand these issues. I think especially given today’s society, it is ridiculous for a group of mostly white rich men to making decisions that affect women’s bodies. Thankfully, our country has sex based discrimination laws that make things like the Bradwell v. Illinois illegal today.
Evan, I really like your analysis here. By highlighting the reality of the demographic of power (cis white men), we are able to see why the ruling was so swift and so anti-woman. However, I don’t just think those men in power wanted to lock women at home to ignore their interests. Yes, that was a consequence of the gender based subjugation, however I think there was and still is a misunderstanding of the “role” of women in society. The fundamental understanding that women and more than their reproductive organs and abilities is lost on a lot of folks. In turn, humanity is drawn along the scope of men and women are subhuman. That’s the fundamental misunderstanding still needs to be addressed today.
Bradwell V Illinois was a Supreme Court case in 1873 which confirmed a law which prevented women from practicing law.
Facts/Question: Myra Bradwell submitted an application to the Supreme Court of Illinois to practice law. Her application was denied on the basis that she was a married women. Bradwell argued that, based on the 14th amendment, pursuing the profession of one’s choice is a privilege of American citizens.
Holding/Rule: The court upheld the law which prohibits women from practicing law.
Reasoning: The court claimed civil law has created a dividend in the roles of men and women. The court explains that the reason this is true is because gender roles are a part of nature. The idea of a women pursuing a career along with a husband goes against those rules of nature, and thus was prohibited.
This court decision is an example of the court ruling in the interest of the regime. The United States government, past and present, is run by wealthy men. Women pursuing careers directly challenges the power of the individuals inside the regime. This is because the only way to get represented in the United States is to have social capital. By keeping women locked inside the home, policy makers are able to ignore the interests of women. Additionally, women pursuing careers, especially in law, makes elected officials nervous of their own jobs. In order to run for office, one needs a disposable income and experience in the workplace. Limiting the upward mobility of women is a method of preventing them from entering the public sector. This way of thinking reintrenches the gender hierarchy.
Evan, I really like your analysis here. By highlighting the reality of the demographic of power (cis white men), we are able to see why the ruling was so swift and so anti-woman. However, I don’t just think those men in power wanted to lock women at home to ignore their interests. Yes, that was a consequence of the gender based subjugation, however I think there was and still is a misunderstanding of the “role” of women in society. The fundamental understanding that women and more than their reproductive organs and abilities is lost on a lot of folks. In turn, humanity is drawn along the scope of men and women are subhuman. That’s the fundamental misunderstanding still needs to be addressed today.
The Slaughterhouse Cases were brought to the supreme court by James Campbell, who represented butchers of New Orleans, after the state of Luisiana gave monopoly of all slaughterhouses in New Orleans to the Crescent City Company. Campbell said that the state Luisiana infringed on their rights granted by the fourteenth amendment, specifically the right to labour freely. The Supreme Court in other words was tasked to determine whether the state of Luisiana had acted against the constitution in giving Crescent City Company monopoly of New Orleans slaughterhouses. The court decided that Luisiana had acted in concordance to the constitution, because the fourteenth amendment was to protect the rights of newly emancipated slaves, not to give federal responsibility over the rights of citizens. The representative justice said further that because of this, federal court was not responsible specifically for business interests of the slaughterhouse owners.
The slaughterhouse case decision limited the federal protection and privileges of citizens granted by the fourteenth amendment. This is significant because it shows exercise of power by the supreme court over previously passed amendments to the constitution. While the decision of this case itself was not great in my opinion, I think that the supreme court should be able to change amendments, to reflect the changing needs of the citizens the constitution protects. I think that the decision of this case was not great because it not only disenfranchised independent slaughterhouse owners, but also destabilized the fourteenth amendment, which was enacted to address the rights of emancipated slaves. By modifying the part about state versus federal protect the rights of citizens, the Supreme Court put to question the authority and necessity of the amendment, and limited the much needed federal protection of the rights of emancipated slaves, instead putting it under jurisdiction of state law.
I really like your summary and insight on what the problem with slaughterhouse cases was. Basically, the case was the first test to the 14th amendment to the Constitution that had been ratified not long before. To me it is very amazing how later in the 20th and especially 21st centuries the same Amendment was interpreted totally differently comparing to slaughterhouse cases; and to me it once again shows that the judicial system is both the reflection of the regime and the social control. I agree with you that the decision is not to be happy about; not only in terms of this particular case but just in learning how the highest judicial authority made a distinction between the federal and state interests and laws, hence interpreting the law in the necessary way. Campbell is an important figure in the case since he was among the very first ones who argues for a broader understanding of the 14th Amendment. I have read and heard many arguments from Ivy League Law School graduates that Slaughterhouse cases’ reading of 14th Amendment was plausible. Such a strong word as “Immunities” would only later be interpreted as God-given, birth-given no matter federal, state or local level it is. Additionally, Slaughterhouse cases are so to say the tests of decision and 14th Am reading prior to the latter cases on Commerce clause and anti-monopoly laws as well as both federal and state regulation of businesses. I mean that the totality of the problem here is much bigger than the reading of the Constitution’s text, it is about geopolitical, economic and influence interests of the ones in power in the newly-born free country.
I really like your summary and insight on what the problem with slaughterhouse cases was. Basically, the case was the first test to the 14th amendment to the Constitution that had been ratified not long before. To me it is very amazing how later in the 20th and especially 21st centuries the same amendment was interpreted totally different comparing to slaughterhouse cases; and to me it once again shows that the judicial system is both the reflection of the regime and the social control. I agree with you that the decision is not to be happy about; not only in terms of this particular case but in learning how the highest judicial authority made a distinction between the federal and state interests and laws, hence interpreting the law in the necessary way. Campbell is an important figure in the case since he was among the very first ones who argues for a broader understanding of the 14th Amendment. I have read and heard many arguments from Ivy League Law School graduates that Slaughterhouse cases’ reading of 14th Amendment was plausible. Such a strong word as “immunities” would only later be interpreted as God-given, birth-given no matter federal, state or local level it is. Additionally, Slaughterhouse cases are so to say the tests of decision and 14th Am reading prior to the latter cases on Commerce clause and anti-monopoly laws as well as both federal and state regulation of businesses. I mean that the totality of the problem here is much bigger than the reading of the Constitution’s text, it is about geopolitical, economic and influence interests of the ones in power in the newly-born free country.
Your summary is concise and to the point. I also feel strongly that the Supreme Court should be allowed to change amendments to reflect the changing needs of the citizens, and I am very happy that you touched on that in your analysis. The constitution was put in place to protect us much like other laws but as times change, the needs and desires of citizens evolve. However, I also find it a bit troubling that they have so much power. I’m afraid that one day a decision will be made that won’t intirely reflect what the people want/need.
The United States v. Morrison is really about federalism: the balance of power between the federal government and the states; to be more specific, it is about how far each side can use the commerce clause, or the interstate commerce clause, which is found in Article 1 section 8 clause 3. This clause gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations; and among several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The phrase “several states” combined with the elastic clause which states that Congress ultimately has the power to create laws that are absolutely necessary for upholding the Constitution allows Congress to practically control areas and topics that one might not originally think the federal government could control. In fact, this is how Congress allows themselves to not be representative of the regime, but be the regime. Congress passed a law called the Violence Against Women Act which targets not only the violence against women but also state bias when courts deal with these types of cases. Congress used the 14th Amendment to adamantly show these states that they have inadequate investigations whenever sexual assault cases happen which obviously show state bias; this can impact the sentencing of the people who committed the crime. This also creates a focus on the victims of these cases but gives them a bad perspective in the eyes of the court, which is the reason why these state courts always asks these unnecessary questions that lead many people to believe the victims are at fault. The Interstate Commerce Clause comes into play because when women become the victims of these cases, they tend to resign from their jobs, drop out of college, and exclude themselves from society; this impacts not only their lives but also the economy. Part of the Violence Against Women Act gives women the ability to go to federal court and sue the people that abused them. Despite that, the states try to challenge this using other amendments to prove that Congress is taking advantage of its own powers by controlling cases and laws they shouldn’t be controlling in the first place. The United States v. Morrison starts in 1994, in Virginia Polytechnic Institute where a student named Christy Brzonkala accused two varsity football players, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, of raping her. In 1995, she filed a complaint against them under the school’s sexual assault policy; Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault after a hearing and was also suspended for two semesters. However, James Crawford was not punished. Using this part of the Violence Against Women Act, Brzonkala decides to sue Morrison again and took him to federal court. The Supreme Court asserted that Congress had overstepped its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Although the court agrees the women are not being treated equally in their own states when it comes to these cases and they absolutely deserve the right to try to have some kind of reparations, the Supreme Court brings up the state doctrine (you can go after the state that is creating such inequalities but not the person that discriminated against you). This is what happened in US v. Morrison. Rather than go after the state of Virginia, Brzonkala went after Morrison, which is not protected underneath the 14th Amendment. Most importantly, there is no substantial economic impact for this case to be protected underneath this amendment and the interstate commerce clause. This case had a 5-4 decision, with the conservatives going for states’ rights.
I don’t really agree with the decision the Supreme Court made, because in the end, they chose to focus mostly on the fact the case wasn’t going to create a negative economic impact which is why they believed Congress should not have to worry about it. It’s almost as if rape cases and other sexual assault cases are to be left as a “domestic” problem and that it shouldn’t require the attention of higher authority. Although, yes, by federalizing these cases, one would have to question if there are any topics, ideas, and principles Congress can’t control on and if Congress does have the ability to control literally every aspect of a person’s life and problems.
Minor v. Happersett
Virginia Minor brought this case to the Supreme Court against District Register Reese Happersett in October of 1872. Minor was a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, who was refused the right to register as lawful voter for the Presidential and Vice – Presidential elections. Happerset, the Registrar of Voters, justified his refusal due to the fact that Minor was not a “male citizen of the United States”. Minor viewed this refusal as she was being deprived of her lawful right to vote under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. However, the court decided that 14th Amendment did not add any new privileges and immunities to citizens, but merely protects those that they already have. Consequently, the court stated that Virginia Minor, as a citizen of United States wasn’t obliged to the right of suffrage since she didn’t have it before.
Even though women in the U.S. gained their right to vote only in 1919, after the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, I think Minor v. Happersett was a very important step towards it. I believe, Virginia Minor intentionally initiated this case in order to challenge the existing law to heard by society and to bring public attention to the issue. Even though Virginia Minor never voted herself, she played an important role in securing the right to vote that woman have today.
Great summary of the case Natalia. I agree with you, this case was really important for women’s rights. It is a great example of the power of activism, just like United States v. Susan B. Anthony.
The Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. United States. The owner of a Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, which restricted service to white persons only, refusing to accept Black Americans sued for declaratory relief. Arguing that Congress was exceeding its power by prohibiting Places of public accommodation under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Since Three-fourth of the Motel clientele were interstate travelers it affected commerce. The Supreme Court ruled on Dec 14, 1964, that in passing Title II of the Civil Rights Act (1964) Congress did not exceed the regulatory authority granted to it by the Commerce Clause of Article I. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Clark, the Court decided to uphold the law. Since the Motel was positioned near Interstates and it received most of its business from outside of Georgia the government can prohibit the Motel to discriminate on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause.
I agree with the decision of the case, especially for the reason given by Justice Goldberg. He concurred by saying “ The primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics.” The constant social rejection was a reminder to African American of the way they were viewed in American society, as lesser. This landmark case, unfortunately, did not end segregation in the south where the Motel was located, but it represented the first comprehensive act by Congress that forced a private business to obey title II.
I enjoyed your summary, it touched on important points. I also agreed with the decision of the case. I also agreed that this was a step towards trying to end segregation, although this case did not end it. I liked that you added what Goldberg stated, because it did show what the purpose of the civil rights act was for and they were able to go against it.
In Bradwell vs. Illinois, Myra Bradwell, a resident of Illinois, applied for a license to practice law. Her application was denied. The two questions answered by opinion(s) of the court were: does a citizen of the United States reserve the right to acquire a profession of their choice? Are married women able to work?
The court ruled that Myra Bradwell could not practice law because the court reserved the right to grant the licenses by discretion. Citing the 14th Amendment, Justice Miller’s opinion highlighted that practicing law was a priviledge relegated to citizens at the discretion of the court. Justice Bradley followed up by saying she could not receive a law license because she was a woman.
While Miller ignored the gender element— Bradley’s opinion was riddled with gender based reasoning. Miller sounded frustrated, using the Slaughterhouse cases as precedent, he sites the 14th Amendment as a reasoning for his opinion. Bradley says, “the paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.” Her gender, coupled with her marital status, excluded her from practicing law.
The ruling upheld the status quo. It concurs with the opinion of the day that women were property of men and ultimately, their purpose was to breed children. As awful as that is, it shows how backwards society was and how much of those disgusting sentiments are still alive today.