Thaddeus Donald Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc.

In a unanimous opinion in March 2020, the Court ruled that under the Civil Rights Act, Allen was burdened to show that race was the sole reason Comcast failed to enter into a contract with his network.

The Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, because Congress intended to include them, but that a plaintiff must prove the defendant's policies cause the disparity.· AI-written

In a death penalty case about racial issues in jury selection, the Court ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated its earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky.· AI-written

The court held that a defendant satisfies the first step of Batson v. Kentucky by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred, and a state cannot adopt a "more likely than not" standard for this step.

The court held that a prison system's policy of segregating new residents by race for the purpose of inhibiting gang violence is subject to strict scrutiny analysis.

The Court unanimously held that the Fair Housing Act imposed liability without fault on a corporate employer under traditional agency principles, normally making the corporation vicariously liable but not its officers or owners.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race.

The Court held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.

The Court re-examined the Batson Challenge against race-based peremptory strikes and expanded it, allowing defendants and other parties to question peremptory challenges in jury selection regardless of race, under the Equal Protection Clause.· AI-written

The Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors solely because of their race in a criminal case violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.· AI-written

The Court held that a defendant's conviction must be reversed if members of their race were systematically excluded from the grand jury that indicted them, even if they were convicted following an otherwise fair trial.

The Court rejected the consideration of racial bias in child custody proceedings, holding it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.· AI-written

The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional because there was no proof that "discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the Village's decision."

The case involved Chicago families in housing projects who received Section 8 vouchers to move to the suburbs, and the Court ruled that the housing department had violated the Fifth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.· AI-written

The Court ruled that Pennsylvania's grant of a liquor license to a private lodge that refused service to a black man was too distant a connection to be state action, though it overturned a regulation requiring fraternal groups to enforce their membership policies.· AI-written

The majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan, asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment.

The Court held an amendment of a city charter to discriminate against minorities, and constitute a real, substantial, and invidious denial of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as codified in 42 U.S.C. § 1982, barred both private and public racial discrimination in the sale or rental of property, a valid exercise of Congress's Thirteenth Amendment power.· AI-written

The Court upheld an appeals court decision to forbid segregation of public prisons.

The Court held that laws banning interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Set an important legal precedent that held that a state could not authorize invidious discrimination by private landlords without entangling itself in the ensuing discriminatory private decisions.

The Court found in favor of the petitioner (Whitus), who had been convicted for murder, and as such reversed their convictions.

The Court unanimously held that Congress acted within its Commerce Clause power when it forbade racial discrimination in restaurants, because such discrimination burdened interstate commerce.· AI-written

The Court held that the Commerce Clause gave the U.S. Congress power to force private businesses to abide by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin in public accommodations.

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a cohabitation law of Florida, part of the state's anti-miscegenation laws, was unconstitutional.

The Court held that a probable-cause hearing where a court decides whether there is sufficient evidence to present to a grand jury has a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel requiring the appointment of a lawyer for the defendant.

The Supreme Court struck down a Birmingham, Alabama ordinance that prohibited citizens from holding parades and processions on city streets without first obtaining a permit.

The Court decided that the Equal Protection Clause applies to private business that operates in a relationship to a government that is close to the point that it becomes a "state actor."

The court, in a 5–4 decision, upheld the trespassing conviction of six African-American men who were barred from a golf course because of their race.

In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Court unanimously ruled that a cafeteria's segregating policies were illegal, in a case over the validity of 1872 and 1873 Acts that prohibited segregation in public places in the District of Columbia.· AI-written

Abolished segregation in railroad dining cars with an 8-0 ruling.

The Court held that racially restrictive housing covenants (deed restrictions) cannot legally be enforced.

The Court ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land.