The judicial inquiry into the existence of “State action” may lead to different results, depending on the remedy to be performed. While a private actor can be sued to force him to cease his discriminatory act (for example, to force him to admit blacks to a lunch counter), one could just as easily take legal action against the government to force him to stop supporting the private actor in his discriminatory behavior. The application of the latter remedy may well avoid the constitutional issues that an injunction to the private party would raise.1425 In both cases, however, consideration must be given to whether state participation is sufficient to bring a constitutional appeal. A lawsuit against the private party must determine whether it is so closely associated with the government that it is subject to constitutional restrictions, while a lawsuit against the government agency must determine whether the government`s actions have “unduly encouraged” private conduct. When it comes to public schools, no state has actually required separate schools for blacks in this era of reconstruction. [29] However, some states (e.g., New York) have allowed local districts to establish schools that are considered separate but equivalent. [30] In contrast, Iowa and Massachusetts had banned segregated schools since the 1850s. [31] 1364 “These are not cases. in which States have merely abstained and left individuals free to impose the discrimination they deem appropriate. Rather, they are cases in which States have conferred on such persons the full coercive power of the Government to deny claimants ownership rights on grounds of race or colour in premises that claimants are willing and financially able to acquire and that grantors are willing to sell. 334 U.S. at 19. In Hurd v.
Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (1948), the Court prohibited the judicial enforcement of restrictive agreements in the District of Columbia in violation of civil rights and public order. Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953), argued that actions for damages for breach of racially restrictive agreements would not be dealt with in court. 1429 In contrast to the situation in which discrimination against private clubs is directly attacked, “the question of the existence of State action centres is to the extent of the city`s participation in discriminatory acts by private institutions using public facilities”. The mere provision of a benefit or service does not constitute evidence of state involvement in discrimination through the mere provision of electricity, water, police and fire safety, access to communal recreational facilities in general, and the lower court`s order was too broad because it was not based on an appropriate finding of state action. “If, however, the city or other government agency rations otherwise freely accessible recreational facilities, the case for government action will of course be stronger than if the facilities are simply available to all arrivals without conditions or reservations.” 417 U.S.
at 573–74. See also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (plaintiffs unsuccessfully sued officials, challenging not the officials` administrative decision on Medicaid payments, but the nursing home`s decisions on discharge and transfer of patients). 1455 220 U.S. 61, 78–79 (1911), quoted in full in Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 463–64 (1957). Intentionally discriminatory classifications are automatically covered by the equal treatment clause. For example, Barbier v.
Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 30 (1885); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373–74 (1886). See New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 593 n.40 (1979).
It is clear from the wording as a whole that a legislature must have had a legitimate purpose, a requirement that is rarely missed given the leniency of judicial review. But see Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 63–64 (1982) et al., at p. 65 (Brennan J. agreed). This city stands on almost two equal parts on either side of the river that runs through it. Bingham said in a speech on March 31, 1871, that the clause meant that no state could deny anyone “the same protection of the Constitution of the United States.” [or] any of the rights it guarantees to all men,” or deny to any person “any right guaranteed to him either by the laws and treaties of the United States or by such a State.” [24] At that time, the importance of equality varied from state to state. [25] However, in a comprehensive analysis of the equal protection analysis at the beginning of this period, the Court confirmed a two-step approach and stated that the Court would decide the case on the basis of minimum standards of rationality if the interests at issue did not require rigorous consideration. Justice Powell, Dist. Rodriguez, 1483 for the San Antonio School Court of Justice, firmly rejected the contention that a de facto classification of assets with negative effects on the poor was either a suspect classification or merited a different examination from the traditional basis,1484 an attitude that has been categorically confirmed by the court on several occasions.1485 But the court`s rejection of some form of interim review did not survive long.