Major Race-Related Cases at the Supreme Court

Holding that slaves who took control of the slave ship they were on were not criminals because they had been unlawfully kidnapped onto the ship.

Holding that black people were not citizens and could not enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Holding that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not give Congress the power to outlaw private racial discrimination.

Holding that a law that is not discriminatory on its face but is administered in a discriminatory way violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Upholding segregated facilities if they are “separate but equal.”

Holding that if a state provides a school for white students, it must also provide one for black students.

Holding that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could put Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.

Holding that segregation on buses that cross state lines violated the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Holding that racially discriminatory housing contracts cannot be enforced.

Holding that if separated school facilities were not in fact equal, the school had to let black students use the white facilities.

Holding that whites-only primary elections were unconstitutional.

Holding that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Holding that Congress had the power to prohibit most private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

Holding that laws banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Creating the disparate impact theory.

Holding that laws with discriminatory effects do not violate the Constitution unless adopted with a racially discriminatory motive.

Creating a test to determine whether a law had a discriminatory motive.

Holding that universities can use racial preferences in admissions.

Holding that private employers may sometimes use racial preferences in hiring.

Holding that Congress can spend money in a racially discriminatory way to remedy past racial discrimination.

Holding that societal discrimination is too vague a basis for racially discriminatory remedial programs.

Holding that discriminatory remedial programs are permissible only when the government identifies a specific instance of discrimination in which it had participated.

Holding that racial preferences are subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny.

Holding that universities may use racial preferences in admissions to achieve “the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”

Holding that a points-based admissions system that automatically favored all people of certain races was unconstitutional because it did not examine the “diversity contributions” of each applicant.

Holding that universities may no longer use racial preferences in admissions.