Civil Rights FAQs
What does the Thirteenth Amendment do?
Ratified on December 18, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment permanently abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States.
What does the Fourteenth Amendment do?
Ratified on July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States and overturned another portion of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, where Supreme Court decided no one of African descent could ever become a citizen. It also granted all persons -– not just citizens – equal protection and due process under the law.
What does the Fifteenth Amendment do?
Ratified on February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment amended the constitution to deny both the federal government and the states power to deprive U.S. citizens of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What did the Civil Rights Act of 1875 do?
Signed into law by President Grant, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 banned discrimination by private individuals and organizations. Though the act contained heavy fines against and imprisonment for violators, it was rarely enforced, and was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883 in the Civil Rights Cases. The cases were brought by African Americans who faced discrimination in hotels, theaters, and other settings. The Court decided the Fourteenth Amendment only prohibited discrimination by the state, not individuals. This meant individual business owners were free to discriminate on whatever basis they wanted.
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1957?
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first piece of civil rights legislation passed by Congress since the Reconstruction era. Despite southern resistance to the bill, including a fierce 24-hour filibuster attempt by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, Congress passed the bill and it was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on September 9, 1957. It also established the United States Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) and the Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department.
What are the responsibilities of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission?
The commission is a bipartisan independent agency charged with investigating complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. It also studies and collects information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution; appraises federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws; serves as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination, submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress; and issues public service announcements to discourage discrimination.
What are the responsibilities of the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department?
The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is the institution within the federal government responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin. The Division enforces the following legislation:
- The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended through 1992;
- Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
- Americans with Disabilities Act;
- National Voter Registration Act;
- Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act;
- Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act; and additional civil rights provisions contained in other laws and regulations;
- Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act;
- Police Misconduct Provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994;
- Section 102 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and citizenship status as well as document abuse and retaliation under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
These laws prohibit discrimination in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and conducted programs. It is also responsible for coordinating the civil rights enforcement efforts of federal agencies whose programs are covered by these laws and assists federal agencies in identifying and removing discriminatory provisions in their policies and programs.
What is the Nineteenth Amendment?
Ratified on August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment guarantees women the right to vote. After unsuccessfully lobbying Congress for women’s voting rights during the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, many suffragists focused their efforts on state legislatures and by 1918 half the states in the nation granted women at least partial, if not full, voting rights. But it was the indispensable support of women during the war effort in WWI that won widespread support, including President Woodrow Wilson, originally a dogged opponent of the measure.
What is the National Labor Relations Act?
In an effort to quell the violent confrontations between workers and employers during the Depression era, particularly after the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. The National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of workers to organize without hindrance from employers involved in interstate commerce, except airlines, railroads, agriculture and government. To enforce these rights, the Act established a National Labor Relations Board, which also arbitrates conflicts between employees, employers, and unions, and penalizes management for unfair labor practices.
What is the Fair Labor Standards Act?
Many Depression-era workers were subjected to poor pay and awful working conditions, but Congress sought to change that with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. The FLSA established minimum living standards for workers involved directly or indirectly in interstate commerce, set standards for overtime, and banned child labor. It also created a Wage and Hour Division in the Department of Labor to enforce these new standards.
What was Executive Order 9066 (Japanese Internment)?
Soon after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt, with Executive Order 9066, authorized the internment of an estimated 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, most of whom were U.S. citizens. For more than two and half years, internees suffered in cramped living quarters at compounds with barbed-wire fences despite the fact that the internees were a manifestly innocent minority. President Reagan in 1988 signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, a bill apologizing for the internment, and in 1990 the government began paying reparations to surviving internees.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Korematsu v. United States?
Though his loyalty was never questioned, Fred Korematsu, an American-born citizen of Japanese ancestry, was convicted for knowingly avoiding internment by the government during WWII in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area." Korematsu claimed the ruling violated his right to due process, but in a 6-3 decision the Court said loyal United States citizens could be summarily incarcerated solely based on their race, ethnicity or national origin. In his dissent, Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy said the internment "goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism." Forty years after his conviction, Korematsu challenged the ruling again and had it overturned on November 10, 1983.
What did the Supreme Court say in Brown v. Board of Education?
In Brown, the Supreme Court overturns earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, declaring the establishment by state law of separate public schools for black and white students inherently unequal. The Warren Court's unanimous decision states, in no uncertain terms, that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How has the Brown decision been challenged since 1954?
Since Brown, ending racial discrimination in the nation's schools has been difficult and controversial.
In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,(1971) the Court held that busing was an appropriate legal tool for addressing illegal segregation of the schools. This decision was met with fierce opposition in the north and south.
In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) a challenge to an unequal state educational funding system, the Supreme Court holds that a school-financing system based on local property taxes is not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The majority opinion states that education is not a fundamental right under the constitution and thus the financing system is not subject to strict scrutiny.
In Milliken v. Bradley(1974) the Supreme Court limits the scope of its decision in Swann by ruling that busing can only extend across district lines when there is actual evidence that all of the districts impacted have engaged in a deliberate policy of segregation.
In Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturns a District Court ruling that had required the state of Missouri to correct de facto racial inequality in schools by funding salary increases and remedial education programs. The Court's majority interprets Brown v. Board of Education as restricting only de jure segregation, and refers to Milliken v. Bradley and other precedents as applying only to intra-district desegregation.
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District no. 1 (2007), decided together with Meredith v. Jefferson, the Court affirmed school diversity as a compelling state interest, but held the two student assignment plans at issue in the case unconstitutional, because they were not sufficiently narrowly tailored. This ruling limits the tools available to local educators seeking to ensure a diverse learning environment and equal access to a quality education.
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination in public accommodations and employment, and bars discrimination in federally funded programs on the bases of race, sex and national origin.
How has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 been challenged and interpreted?
In Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the Supreme Court decides that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional job discrimination, but also employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women.
In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), a unanimous Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of unlawful job discrimination under Title VII and broadly defined sexual harassment as including an abusive or hostile work environment.
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to Title VII in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber (2007) when it held that victims of pay discrimination must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of when the employer made its initial discriminatory pay decision, rather than within 180 of the employee's last discriminatory paychecks, thus making pay discrimination cases almost impossible to bring and win.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Lau v. Nichols?
The Supreme Court holds that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects the rights of people who are limited English proficient, ruling that language-based discrimination is a proxy for national origin discrimination.
What is the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
The Voting Rights Act outlaws literacy tests and other discriminatory “tests and devices” used to determine the qualifications of citizens to vote, provides for federal registration of voters in areas where less than 50 percent of eligible minority voters are registered, and requires that states with a history of denying the right to vote to minority voters must clear changes to voting laws with the federal government. The Voting Rights Act's enforcement structure also gives private citizens the right to sue individuals and municipalities that engage in unlawful voting discrimination.
How has the Voting Rights Act been challenged and interpreted since its passage?
In City of Mobile v. Bolden, the Supreme Court narrowly interprets the Voting Rights Act's prohibition against denying the right to vote on account of race or ethnicity by ruling that voters must prove racially discriminatory intent in order to establish a violation of the Act. This decision was overturned by Congress in the 1982 reauthorization of the Act, making it clear that a violation of Section 2’s prohibition against discrimination can be established by proving discriminatory effect alone, rather than having to show discriminatory purpose.
In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court holds that North Carolina’s 12th congressional district, which had recently elected the first African American from North Carolina to Congress since Reconstruction, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th amendment. According to the majority opinion, although North Carolina's redistricting plan was racially neutral on its face, the shape of the 12th congressional district was so “bizarre” as to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Supreme Court sends the case back to the lower court for their consideration of whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan.
In Reno v. Bossier Parrish School Board II (2000), the Supreme Court rules, 5-4, that the only relevant test under the federal pre-approval provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Section 5) is whether the voters in question are made worse off by the voting change. Thus, the fact that a voting change was purposefully discriminatory and violates the U.S. Constitution is not enough to block its implementation. This decision was overturned in the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA.
In Georgia v. Ashcroft (2003), the Supreme Court interprets Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to allow pre-approval of redistricting plans that diminish a minority community's ability to elect its candidates of choice, as long as the overall "influence" of that community is not diminished. This decision opens the doors to the potential for diminishment of nearly 40 years of progress under the Voting Rights Act. This decision was overturned in the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA.
What is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967?
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against workers aged 40 and older because of their age.
How has the ADEA been interpreted challenged and interpreted since its passage?
In a 5-4 decision in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents (2000), the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars state employees from suing their employers in federal court for money damages under the ADEA.
What is Title IX of the Higher Education Act of 1972?
Title IX prohibits any person in the United States from being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. This statute has helped establish gender equity in all levels of education by protecting students, faculty and staff, and prohibits sexual harassment in all school programs.
How has Title IX been challenged and interpreted since its passage?
In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) and Davis v. Monroe County School District (1999), the Supreme Court made clear that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires schools to take action to prevent and stop the harassment of students by teachers or other students. However, those decisions also severely limited the circumstances under which victims of such harassment may recover money damages for their injuries.
In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005), the Court decided victims who protest sex discrimination may sue to challenge retaliation if their schools punish them as a result, stating that “if retaliation were not prohibited, Title IX’s enforcement scheme would unravel.”
What is the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988?
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Grove City College v. Bell, Congress specifies that recipients of federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all areas of their operation, not just the particular programs or activities that receive direct funding. The act also requires any company or institution receiving federal funds to comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws.
What is the Civil Rights Act of 1991?
Congress overturns a string of decisions issued by the Supreme Court in 1989 that had limited the rights of employees to prevail in court when discriminated against by their employers.
What is the American Disabilities Act of 1990?
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on disability, providing equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, state and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation. The Act also mandates the establishment of TDD/telephone relay services
How has the ADA been challenged and interpreted since its passage?
The Supreme Court decided in University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal courts by state employees seeking to recover money damages for discrimination in violated certain provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 5-4 majority said, among other things, that although a state's discrimination on the basis of disability may be "hardhearted," it is not necessarily unconstitutional.
