Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

Desegregation, Academic Achievement and Earnings

Abstract: In 1896, the US Supreme Court decision Plessey v. Ferguson deemed that the establishment of separate school systems for whites and blacks did not violate the absolute equality of the two races before the law. Thus, the doctrine of separate but equal prevailed in the provision of public elementary, secondary, and tertiary education in southern states until 13 parents brought a class-action suit against the segregated Topeka, Kansas school district. The landmark decision Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) ruled separate but equal unconstitutional in the case of education, outlawing de jure segregation. Yet, it took a number of years and additional court cases to compel districts to integrate schools and actually dismantle the dual system. Recent Supreme Court decisions do raise the possibility of resegregation going forward, as they narrow the circumstances in which race can be considered in enrolment decisions. In combination with the increasing popularity of various forms of school choice, the changing legal environment will likely erode some of the desegregation gains achieved over the past half century. This article attempts to summarize what we know about the impact of Brown on academic and economic outcomes for blacks. The first section briefly describes the legal history that established the environment governing the allocation of students among schools and the main types of plans used to desegregate schools. The next section documents changes over time in school-enrolment patterns, focusing both on the ways in which districts allocate students among schools and the distribution of students among districts. The penultimate section discusses evidence of desegregation-program effects on white enrolment and the final section discusses the evidence of the effects of school desegregation and racial composition on academic and economic outcomes.

Nancy Cruzan in China.

Abstract: Nancy Cruzan in China Had the Cruzan family been in China when Nancy Cruzan suffered the accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state, and had China done to the Cruzans what Missouri has done to them, outrage would have rung throughout the United States. The commandeering of Nancy Cruzan's living body by the Chinese government would likely have been condemned by the White House, the State Department, and the Attorney General. Nancy's parents, who know and love her better than anyone on earth, would have been seen as her natural protectors, the state as an unpredictable predator. Most Americans would likely have found it easy to see that both her and Nancy's family's rights were being unconscionably violated, and have thanked God that we live in a free country where arbitrary governmental actions are restrained by a Constitution. Yet the post-Reagan Supreme Court's majority seems to believe that while personal constitutional rights exist, the Constitution should not protect them against government restrictions that are related to a legitimate state interest and are not completely "irrational." In the abortion context the struggle between the individual and the state can be misleadingly portrayed as one between the pregnant woman and the fetus. But there can be no mistake in the case of Nancy Cruzan. The choice is between the rights of Nancy Cruzan and her family, and the interests of the state. How did the state prevail? Why are we moving more and more toward a government that sees citizens merely as means to its own ends? Nancy Cruzan in Missouri Nancy Cruzan, like Karen Quinlan before her, is a young woman in a persistent vegetative state whose parents believe that she would not want to continue to live permanently unconscious. Unlike Ms. Quinlan, however, who required both a mechanical ventilator and tube feeding at the time her case was heard in court, Ms. Cruzan requires only the latter. The trial judge granted the Cruzans' petition to have tube feeding discontinued because he believed this is what Nancy wanted. The Supreme Court of Missouri, however, reversed on the grounds that the judge's decision was based only on the preponderance of the evidence (that is, it was more likely than not that Nancy wanted tube feeding discontinued), and not on a higher standard of proof, "clear and convincing" evidence, which the court said would have required Nancy herself to have expressed a specific decision about permanent comas and tube feeding before her accident. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that such evidence was required because Nancy was "not dead" and the state had an "unqualified interest" in her continued life. (1) In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of her own wishes, the state could insist that treatment continue indefinitely. The Cruzans appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (2) Before the Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the five-to-four majority opinion of the Court, mischaracterizing the case as one involving the "right to die" and the right to "cause death." Without deciding the central right to refuse treatment issue, he said, "for purposes of this case" the Court would "assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition." This right was implicit in previous Court decisions, based on the liberty interest delineated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The core of the case, however, involved determining what restrictions the state could impose on the exercise of the right to refuse treatment by surrogate decisionmakers acting on behalf of previously competent patients. In the Court's words, the narrow question was "whether the U.S. Constitution forbids a state from requiring clear and convincing evidence of a person's expressed decision while competent to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn in such a way as to cause death. …

When Is a Change Going to Come: Separate and Unequal Treatment in Health Care Fifty Years after the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Abstract: Enacted in memorial to President Kennedy, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a monumental feat. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the vehicle used by Congress to put an end to racial bias in health care, education, and other areas. One member of Congress noted that Title VI “represented the moral sense of the Nation that there should be racial equality in Federal assistance programs.” In health care, Title VI prohibits health care facilities in receipt of government funding from using racial bias to determine who receives quality health care. It provides both a private right of action and mandates for government enforcement. Section 601 provides private parties with the right to sue health care facilities that use racial bias to prevent their participation or access to benefits under programs funded by federal financial assistance, such as Medicare or Medicaid payments. Section 602 requires the federal government to undertake measures to ensure that health care facilities receiving federal financial assistance do not prevent participation or access to health care benefits based on race. Unfortunately, fifty years after the passage of Title VI, health care in the United States continues to be racially separate and unequal. Thus, one must ask: when is a change going to come? Prior to the passage of Title VI, hospitals and nursing homes funded by the federal government were racially segregated. The hospitals and nursing homes with the best quality care served Caucasians, while African Americans were treated in substandard facilities. Since the passage of Title VI, many hospitals and nursing homes that receive federal funding have continued to be racially segregated, and those that serve African Americans are still substandard. This separate and unequal health care system in the United States is caused by racial bias prohibited by Title VI. This situation can no longer be ignored. Hence, in this article I undertake a critical analysis of the failure of Title VI to put an end to racial bias in health care in the United States, discuss how racial bias causes racial disparities in African Americans’ access to quality health care and health status, and provide suggestions on how to put an end to racial bias in health care. Using nursing homes and hospitals as case studies, Section II compares the state of health care in the United States prior to and after the passage of Title VI to show that there have been little to no gains made in eradicating racial bias. In fact, David Barton Smith’s research has shown that nursing homes have never achieved full racial integration or actively sought African American patients. The only change in nursing homes after Title VI was the removal of blatant discriminatory advertising. Nursing homes are not the only culprits. Empirical evidence shows that racial bias remains rampant in every facet of health care. In the 1970s, some hospitals remained racially segregated by floor, room, and staff. In the 1980s, African Americans were denied admission to nursing homes that provided excellent quality of care. In the 1990s, studies found that some physicians believed minority patients were unintelligent, which kept physicians from recommending medically appropriate cardiac catheterization, curative surgery for early-stage lung cancer, and antibiotics to treat pneumonia, thereby increasing mortality rates of African Americans. In the 2000s, research showed that race was a significant factor in the decision to close hospitals between 1937 and 2003. In the 2010s, physician surveys showed that some pediatricians’ racial bias prevented them from prescribing medically necessary pain medication for African American children following surgery. Thus, because racial bias persists in health care, it comes as no surprise that health care remains racially separate and unequal. Section III discusses how each branch of the federal government has not only failed to put an end to racial bias in health care as mandated by Title VI, but also it has often further exacerbated the problem by eliminating private rights to challenge the continuation of racial bias and ignoring the existence of racial bias. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the executive branch agency in charge of enforcing Title VI in health care, has failed to racially integrate and equalize the care provided by hospitals, ignored the use of racial bias in nursing home admissions, and exempted physicians from compliance with Title VI. The judicial branch has not only eviscerated the protections under Title VI by limiting private parties’ right to sue for disparate impact bias, but it has also allowed HHS to neglect its duties to enforce Title VI. Even though congressional reports and congressionally ordered reports by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) have noted the continuation of racial bias in health care and the government’s failure to enforce Title VI, the legislative branch did not mention racial bias or fix the problems with Title VI when it passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). With limited options to challenge racial bias in health care, African Americans continue to be denied equal access to quality health care because of racial bias. Reviewing decades of empirical research studies, Section IV shows how the continuation of interpersonal and institutional racial bias has led to racial disparities in access to quality health care and health status. Interpersonal racial bias is the conscious (explicit) or unconscious (implicit) use of racial prejudice in interactions between individuals. Interpersonal racial bias in health care is best illustrated by physicians’ treatment decisions based on their racial prejudice that results in the unequal treatment of African Americans. This often leads to racial disparities in mortality rates compared to Caucasians. Institutional racial bias operates through organizational structures within institutions and “establish[es] separate and independent barriers” to health care services. According to Brietta Clark, institutional racial bias in health care is best demonstrated by hospital closures in African American communities, which leaves minority neighborhoods without access to medical services. Due to these biases, African Americans are prevented from accessing quality health care, which leads to African Americans’ increased disability and mortality. Unfortunately, when passing the ACA, the government ignored the significance of racial bias in causing racial disparities in access to quality health care, and by extension, health status; instead it focused on research, data collection, and quality improvement programs that do not take into account racial bias. Section V critiques the ACA’s programs designed to address racial disparities in health care, discusses new HHS plans and programs to address racial disparities, and provides solutions to put an end to racial bias in health care and eliminate racial disparities in access to health care and health status. In response to the passage of the ACA, HHS issued an Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Action Plan), developed the National Stakeholder Strategy for Achieving Health Equity in order to ensure that racial and ethnic minorities reach their full health potential, and partnered with the National Consortium for Multicultural Education for Health Professionals to create a medical school course concerning civil rights law and health disparities. These programs are a move in the right direction; however, additional steps are needed. In order to address interpersonal bias, the government should educate health care providers about their racial bias that affects medical treatment decisions and apply Title VI to physicians. To put an end to institutional racial bias, initiatives to put an end to racial disparities in health care need to be integrated with Title VI enforcement and Medicare and Medicaid quality regulations. For example, the collection of racial data that evidences racial disparities in health care should be shared with those prosecuting racial bias under Title VI and those who enforce Medicare and Medicaid to regulate the quality of health care provided by health care facilities. Additionally, both state and federal regulators should require all government-funded health care facilities to conduct strategic diversity planning, which includes increasing the diversity of health care providers and patients within the health care facility. Finally, regulators must require any health care entity planning to close quality health care facilities in predominately minority neighborhoods to submit a racial impact statement that assesses the harm to the minority neighborhood. Many of these solutions, such as provider education and racial impact statements, can be implemented under the current laws and regulations, while others such as applying Title VI to physicians, will require changes in the rules. Nevertheless, without these changes, racial bias in health care will continue making Title VI’s promise of equal access to health care a lie.

The Pendulum of Precedent: U.S. State Legislative Response to Supreme Court Decisions on Minimum Wage Legislation for Women:

Abstract: The impact of U.S. Supreme Court decisions is contingent on the willingness of other political actors to implement those decisions. One important group of implementers is the U.S. state legislatures. However, in the pursuit of policy, state legislators must consider multiple goals when choosing among alternative policy options. In addition to considering the likelihood of review by state high courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, state legislators have their own ideas about good policy and must also face reelection. When are legislators likely to follow precedent and when are they likely to ignore it in pursuit of these other goals? In this article, I examine the enactment of state minimum wage legislation for women in the first half of the twentieth century. The results show that even after controlling for legislative and constituent preferences, legislators heed the preferences of the U.S. Supreme Court—but not necessarily their own high courts—when deciding to pass minimum wage legislation. The results po...