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 …show more content…
'an infallible test for determining whether the State has become significantly involved in private discriminations' so as to constitute state action.
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 …show more content…
membership policies of the local private club with the color of state law. In Solomon the court was faced with an arms-length lease entered into by a municipality far from the location of the local club. Thus, on the facts of this case, the Court holds that the "symbiotic relationship" between the state and the Club exists, thereby making any discriminatory action by the Club a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1961). By virtue of the lease, the acts of the Club become those of the state and any deprivation of an individual's rights by the Club become a deprivation by the state.
Summary of Facts
In prior litigation, the city's operation of segregated swimming pools and other public attractions was declared unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The city desegregated some attractions, but decided to close all of its public pools. Several African-American citizens brought suit to force the city to reopen the pools and operate them on a desegregated basis.
Issues
Does the Plaintiff violate the 14th Amendment.
Does the defense have just cause to close down swimming facilities.
Applicable Law
In the case of Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 the Court affirmed the Court , the lower courts correctly held that the city did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the Court ruled, there was no evidence in the record to show that the city was covertly aiding the maintenance and operation of pools that were private in name only. The record, the Court ruled, showed no state action affecting the races differently. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917);Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958);Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (1963).But the issue here is whether black citizens in Jackson are being denied their constitutional rights when the city has closed the public pools to black and white alike. Nothing in the history or the language of the Fourteenth Amendment nor in any of our prior cases persuades us that the closing of the Jackson swimming pools to all its citizens constitutes a denial of "the equal protection of the laws. Finally, some faint and unpersuasive argument has been made by petitioners that the closing of the pools violated the Thirteenth Amendment which freed the Negroes from slavery. The argument runs this way: The first Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 552 (1896), argued strongly that the purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment was not only to outlaw slavery, but also all of its "badges and incidents." This broad reading of the amendment was affirmed in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968). The denial of the right of Negroes to swim in pools with white people is said to be a "badge or incident" of slavery. Consequently, the argument seems to run, this Court should declare that the city's closing of the pools to keep the two races from swimming together violates the Thirteenth Amendment. To reach that result from the Thirteenth Amendment would severely stretch its short, simple words and do violence to its history. Establishing this Court's authority under the Thirteenth Amendment to declare new laws to govern the thousands of towns and cities of the country would grant it a lawmaking power far beyond the imagination of the amendment's authors. Finally, although the we held in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. could empower Congress to outlaw "badges of slavery." The last sentence of the Amendment reads: No law under this power to regulate a city's opening or closing of swimming pools or other recreational facilities. Jackson, Mississippi, closed all the swimming pools owned and operated by it, following a judgment of the Court of Appeals in Clark v. Thompson, 313 F.2d 637, which affirmed the District Court's grant of a declaratory judgment that three Negroes were entitled to the desegregated use of the city's swimming pools. 206 F.Supp. 539. No municipal swimming facilities have been opened to any citizen of either race since that time; and the city apparently does not intend to reopen the pools on an integrated basis. Whether, in the closing of all municipal swimming pools in Jackson, Mississippi, any artifices and devices were employed as in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, to make the appearance don't conform to the reality, is not shown by this record. Under Burton, if the State has a continuing connection with a swimming pool, it becomes a public facility and the State is under obligation to see that the operators meet all Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities. 365 U.S., at 725. We may not reverse under Burton because we do not know what the relevant facts are.
Summary of Facts
The plaintiff, suing for injunctive and other relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleged that the defendants had refused to sell him a home solely because he was a Negro.
Issues
Can the plaintiff prove that the Defendant violated his right to purchase a home.
Does the defendant Refusal to sell The individual a house based on color Unconstitutional.
Applicable Law
In the case of Parents Involved in Cmty.
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
race.
Enclosing:In the above case of Xanadu v. United States the court would rule against Xanax the of the law being Unconstitutional. Then the closing of all public Golf courses Pool To take the city's liability of their unconstitutional law away From them. But also be looked at as an unconstitutional Act By the city To prohibit blacks Or Jews are minorities of any magnetism To go to these public facilities. This is an unconscionable Act Of discrimination And to further insult The people Of ethnic descent To disguise the closing As Anything other than Discriminatory practices is Ludacris. In each case that I have cited in the above manner Shows time and time again that the court has definitely rang the bell of Liberty That no man or woman or child shall be discriminated against based on their race Creed or color or even religion or background. The 14th amendment has always rung true and has always protected any individuals' legal right equal opportunity protection under the law.