The passage of the Civil War amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—did not end discrimination of African Americans. However, the Supreme Court has relied on these amendments in deciding civil rights cases such as the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978).

a. Identify which provision of the Fourteenth Amendment was applied in Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) and explain its relevance.

b. Explain how the cases of Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bolinger affected affirmative action programs in colleges and universities and explain the significance of each case.

c. Explain the Court's guidelines for deciding discrimination cases.

How would you like us to help you with this assignment?

a. In the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that was applied is the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause is relevant because it prohibits states from treating individuals differently based on their race or ethnicity.

b. The case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bolinger had significant impacts on affirmative action programs in colleges and universities. In Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that specific affirmative action quotas were unconstitutional because they violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, they also recognized that race could be considered as a factor in admissions decisions to promote diversity. This ruling allowed colleges and universities to continue using race as a factor, as long as it was one of many factors considered.

On the other hand, in the case of Grutter v. Bolinger (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy. The Court emphasized the importance of diversity in education and recognized that race could be a valid factor in admissions decisions to achieve a diverse student body. This ruling empowered colleges and universities to continue using race-conscious affirmative action programs, as long as they were narrowly tailored and taken into account as one factor among many.

The significance of these cases lies in their impact on the constitutionality and legality of affirmative action programs. They established guidelines for how race can be considered in admissions decisions, enabling educational institutions to pursue diversity and promote equal opportunities while still adhering to constitutional principles.

c. The Court has established guidelines for deciding discrimination cases, particularly those involving race. They use a legal framework known as strict scrutiny, which requires the government's action to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Under strict scrutiny, the Court evaluates the government's action to determine whether it is designed to address a compelling interest, such as remedying past discrimination or promoting diversity. If the government's action meets this scrutiny, it can survive constitutional challenge.

In the context of discrimination cases, the Court also takes into account the level of scrutiny applied to the classification involved. Classifications based on race, ethnicity, or national origin receive strict scrutiny, while classifications based on other factors (such as gender) receive intermediate scrutiny. This means that the government must have an exceedingly compelling reason to justify racial classifications, while other classifications require a substantial government interest.

Overall, the Court's guidelines for deciding discrimination cases aim to ensure that any government action involving race or other protected characteristics is carefully scrutinized and justifiably based on a compelling state interest.

You need to read a book and do your own homework. I am not giving you the answers. Especially, for free@!!!!