Smith v. Allwright (1944)

Thank you so much for listening, subscribing, and sharing the Untold Stories: Cases that Shaped the Civil Rights Movement. I've enjoyed sharing these important cases with you all. The series is going on a break and will return in 2021 with more great content. In the meantime, please share previous episodes and be on the lookout for new content! Enjoy this replay of one of my favorite cases: U.S. v. Shipp Follow Me! Facebook: palookesworldproductions IG & Twitter: @palookesworld Blog: www.palookesworld.com

This week I look at the case of McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), a decision that's been called the Dred Scott case of our time. This case looks at racial disparities in the handing out of the death penalty. After defendant Warren McCleskey was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of white officer Frank Shlatt, his attorneys relied on a comprehensive study by Professor David Baldus, which analyzed potential racial disparities with respect to the death penalty in the state of Georgia. What the study found is that when a victim is white, a defendant is 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than if the victim was of another race. McCleskey argued that such disparities ran afoul of the 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The court's ruling was a major setback for civil rights. Listen to find out why. Resources: Oral Argument - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/84-6811 Baldus Report: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b268/cf24b5740f56752200f429a1107f0c9b4390.pdf New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/23/us/court-5-4-rejects-racial-challenge-to-death-penalty.html McCleskey Family Interview: https://www.lifeofthelaw.org/2017/05/unequal-protection-part-1/ Be sure to subscribe to this podcast to make sure you never miss an episode! You can also follow me at my blog palookesworld.com Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com

This week I look at Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which deals with preventing black people from serving on the jury. In this case, James K Batson was charged with two counts of burglary and receipt of stolen property. During his trial, the prosecutor, a white man, struck all the black people from the potential jury pool. Batson was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to 20 years in prison. He appealed his case to the US Supreme Court arguing that the use of what's called a "peremptory challenge" to remove all the black people from the potential jury pool violated his 6th Amendment's right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. What emerged from this case is what's now known as the Batson Rule. Listen to find out what that is exactly and to discover the remarkable way this story ended. Resources: Oral Argument - https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-6263 "War on Jails" by James Batson - https://www.amazon.com/War-Jails-Enlighten-James-Batson-ebook/dp/B07965WM98 Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to make sure you never miss a post! You can also follow me at my blog palookesworld.com Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com

This week's episode looks at Terry v. Ohio (1968), which deals with a current hot issue: "stop and frisk." In this case, John Terry, Richard Chilton, and Carl Katz were stopped and frisked by Det. Martin McFadden after he observed them behaving in a suspicious manner. During the frisk, McFadden discovered concealed weapons on both Terry and Chilton. Both men were charged with having a concealed and their attorney, former Congressman Louis Stokes, filed a motion to suppress the weapon. He argued that McFadden subjected Terry and Chilton to an unlawful search. The case made its way to the high court and the result continues to impact policing to the present day. Resources: Oral Argument: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast to make sure you never miss an episode! You can also follow me at my blog palookesworld.com FOLLOW ME: Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com

This week's episode looks at the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.(1964). Unlike previous cases discussed in this series, this one involves a white plaintiff, Moreton Rolleston Jr., who challenged the then newly enacted Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rolleston, a staunch segregationist and lawyer, who owned the Heart of Atlanta Motel and he refused to serve black people. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, he filed an injunction claiming the law was unconstitutional. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court unanimously ruled against him. He continued his litigious ways, eventually suing media mogul Tyler Perry several times. Watch the video above to discover why and to learn more about the case. Resources: Listen to Oral Arguments Here:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515 Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to make sure you never miss a post! You can also follow me at my blog palookesworld.com Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com

Next week is election day, and if you haven't already, please go out and vote! To emphasize the importance of voting, this episode of the Untold Series takes a look back at the episodes highlighting the struggles Black people have faced in this country when trying to vote! From grandfather clauses to race riots, we've been struck down but not destroyed. For anyone who says our vote doesn't matter, please watch and reconsider! This series, The Untold Stories of the Civil Rights Movement, is where I look at some of the most important civil rights cases. I quickly unpack the stories and discuss why I believe they are significant. This series is an adaption of an ad hoc seminar I created while a student at Duke University School of Law. Resources: 1. Film - "Ocoee Massacre" : https://youtu.be/6yYwAg5BP40 2. Book - "On Account of Race" by Lawrence Goldstone:

This episode looks at Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) a case that involved the gerrymandering of a district along racial lines. In the city of Tuskegee, the black population outnumbered the white population 4 to 1, and black people were increasingly registering to vote. This unnerved the white citizens who devised a plan to redraw the lines of the city from a square shape to a 28-side district that included all the white people, and only 4 or 5 black people. It essentially shut all black voters out of city politics. Prof. Charles G. Gomillion, who taught at Tuskegee Institute, filed this lawsuit to stop the city. After losing at the trial and appellate level, he appealed again to the US Supreme. Watch the video to find out what happened. If you like this episode, please be sure to rate and review us! Also, be sure to subscribe to my blog palookesworld.com so that you never miss an episode!

This episode discusses Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) a case that involved the use of restrictive covenants, which barred white people from selling their homes/property to blacks and people of other races and ethnicities. This essentially ensured that neighborhoods would remain segregated. J.D. Shelley, a black man bought a home for his family that had a restrictive covenant attached, and his neighbor sued to have him removed. The case went to the US Supreme. Listen to the episode to find out what happened. Resources-- Book: Olivia's Story: The Conspiracy of Heroes behind Shelley v Kraemer by Jeffery Copeland Film: The Story of Shelley v. Kraemer

In honor of Hispanic Heritage Month, this week I discuss Hernandez v. Texas (1954). It was actually the first civil rights case decided by the Warren court; it was decided two weeks before Brown v. Board of Education. Pedro Hernandez, an American of Mexican descent was tried and convicted of murder by an all-white, non-Hispanic jury. At that time Mexicans were considered "white," but they were subjected to Jim Crow rule like Black Americans. His attorneys appealed his case to the Supreme Court. They argued that the systematic exclusion of Mexican Americans from the jury violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. His attorney Gus Garcia contended that Mexicans were "a class apart" from blacks and whites. **CORRECTION**: In the video, I stated that the plaintiffs did not see themselves as white. However, a more precise word would've been "Anglo," which is often conflated/used interchangeably with the word "white." Hernandez sought to distinguish Mexicans from the often conflated understanding of the word 'white' (ie white=Anglo), thereby creating a class a part, or a class of"other white."

This episode looks at Sweatt v. Painter (1950) a desegregation case decided four years before Brown v. Board of Education. Here, the court looked at whether the University of Texas Law School's segregation policy denied Sweatt Equal Protection of the law under the 14th Amendment because it failed to provide an alternative law school for blacks that was qualitatively equal to UT's law school. This case was an important to step towards the elimination of the separate but equal doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson.