1,655
4
Essay, 3 pages (600 words)

Case brief

Law Case Facts In the Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (195) case, the claimant sued respondent for treating the black American children unfairly. The black American children did not have an access to learning institutions set for the white children (Orlik, 2010). The law suit was against the District Board of Education which had established separate learning institutions for white and for black children in the district. The claimant presented to the district court in Kansas as a representative of the parents under the name of Brown who was one of the thirteen parents filling the case. Mr. Brown filed in 1951 in United Sates district court.
The education board based their decision to establish separate learning institutions on Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), in which the Supreme Court judge ruling allowed separate learning institutes to be established for white and for black children (Orlik, 2010). However, the bench did not make it mandatory for districts to form establish separate institutions, though district education board decided to establish separate institutions. The parents felt that their children were denied the opportunity to interact with their colleagues and therefore, they felt they were being treated with inferiority. This was against the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which granted all the Americans legal safety regardless of their background. The civil right movement arose to fight for equal rights of all Americans which pushed the matter to the court.
Issues before the court
The case was presented to district court and the plaintiff claimant challenged the Topeka District Education Board for treating the Black-American children unfairly (Orlik, 2010). The plaintiff affirmed that having separate learning institution for black and white people offered an opportunity for the black children to be denied access to superior housing facilities, inferior services and mistreatment. In making the ruling, the bar question whether establishing different learning institutions for black and white children amounted to injustice. The other issue was whether this deprived the black Americans their legal security offered by fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
District Court’s Ruling and Rationale
The ruling by the court was that although learning institutions offered similar training, housing and transportation facilities, having different institutions for white and black children was unfair because it had emotional damages to Black American children (Orlik, 2010). They declared that the decision by the Supreme Court in 1986 was alright and since it only allowed separate institutions for white and black children but with equal facilities, instructors and transportation cost. The bench was undecided as to whether the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause forbid establishment of different learning institutions for white and black children.
Case Analysis
The formation of different learning institutions for the white and the black children was unfair because the children could not have freedom to interact with their age mates (Orlik, 2010). Also, it was against the Fourteenth Amendment protection clause, since it did not give them fair legal security. It was not possible to have different institutions with similar facilities and therefore, this was disadvantageous to the black-American children. Although the Supreme Court had granted authority for establishment of separate learning institutions in America, those which were established did not create fairness among the American children.
Conclusion
The bench ruling that separate learning institution would hinder children of their free interaction with their age mates was fair (Orlik, 2010). However, they failed by deciding that separate learning institution established by Topeka District Education Board had similar facilities. Having separate learning institutions for white and black-Americans was not health for the black children because they will feel lesser significant than the white counterparts.
Reference
Orlik, D. K. (2010). Ethics for the Legal Professional: (7th ed). Prentice Hall. Pages 336

Thank's for Your Vote!
Case brief. Page 1
Case brief. Page 2
Case brief. Page 3
Case brief. Page 4

This work, titled "Case brief" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay

References

AssignBuster. (2022) 'Case brief'. 10 January.

Reference

AssignBuster. (2022, January 10). Case brief. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/case-brief-essay-samples/

References

AssignBuster. 2022. "Case brief." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/case-brief-essay-samples/.

1. AssignBuster. "Case brief." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/case-brief-essay-samples/.


Bibliography


AssignBuster. "Case brief." January 10, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/case-brief-essay-samples/.

Work Cited

"Case brief." AssignBuster, 10 Jan. 2022, assignbuster.com/case-brief-essay-samples/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Case brief, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]