Civil Rights Timeline

  • Dred Scott v Standford

    Dred Scott v Standford
    Dred Scott, from 1833 to 1843 resided in Illinois where he was a free man. When he returned to Missouri, he was a slave, and he filed suit for his freedom. He claimed his residence in a free state made him a free man. Taney on the court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and foreclose Congress from freeing slaves within Federal territories.
  • 13th Amendment

    13th Amendment
    This amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. It was first passed by senate, then the house, then ratified by the required amount of states.
  • 14th Amendment

    14th Amendment
    This amendment granted all people born in the United States or naturalized in the U.S citizenship. This included enslaved people at the time and guaranteed all citizens equal protection of the laws.
  • 15th Amendment

    15th Amendment
    This amendment granted African American men the right to vote. This prohibits the government from denying a citizens right to vote. Based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude one can not be told they cannot vote.
  • Plessy v Ferguson

    Plessy v Ferguson
    Louisiana had a separate car act that required different railway cars for African Americans and whites. Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law, wanted to challenge the act and sat in the whites only part of the train. He was told to move but he refused and then he was arrested. The court held that the state law was constitutional.
  • Nineteenth Amendment

    Nineteenth Amendment
    This amendment stated that the right to vote cannot be denied based on sex. This is the amendment that granted women the right to vote.
  • White Primaries

    White Primaries
    Elections held in the south where only white voters were allowed to participate. This was happening in some states because too many African Americans were beginning to be able to pay the poll tax.
  • Brown v Board of Education

    Brown v Board of Education
    This case related to the segregation of schools based on race. African American students were denied admittance to certain public schools because of laws allowing segregation in public education.They argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • 24th Amendment

    24th Amendment
    This amendment outlawed the poll tax as a voting requirement in federal elections. The tax exemplified Jim Crow laws. This was done to protect black voting rights in state and local elections.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Civil Rights Act of 1964
    This act prohibits the discrimination of people based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This meant when it came to hiring, firing, or promoting, these things could not be discriminatory reasons. This act also brought strength to voting rights and desegregation in schools.
  • Affirmative Action

    Affirmative Action
    This involves sets of policies and practices within a government seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality because they are underrepresented. This is also known as positive discrimination.
  • Poll Taxes

    Poll Taxes
    Voters were required to pay their poll tax before they could vote. This was a way for southern states to keep African Americans from voting.
  • Voting Rights Act of 1965

    Voting Rights Act of 1965
    This act outlawed discriminatory voting practices many southern states used after the Civil War. It outlawed literacy tests and provided the appointment of federal examiners.
  • Reed v Reed

    Reed v Reed
    When appointing administrators of estates, the Idaho Probate Code says that males are to be preferred to females. Sally and Cecil Reed lost their son and both were to be named administrator of his estate. Due to the code, Cecil was named administrator and Sally challenged the law. The court held that the different treatment of men and women was unconstitutional.
  • Equal Rights Amendment

    Equal Rights Amendment
    This amendment guarantees equal legal rights for all citizens no matter the sex.
  • Regents of the University of California v Bakke

    Regents of the University of California v Bakke
    Bakke was a white male who applied for medical school at the university. His application was rejected because of the school’s racial quota system, even though he had good scores and there were open slots. He sued the school for their system. The court held that a university’s admissions criteria which used race as a definite and exclusive basis for an admission decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Bowers v Hardwick

    Bowers v Hardwick
    Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. He was charged with violating Georgias statue that criminalized sodomy. The court held that there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy and states were allowed to outlaw the practices.
  • Americans with Disabilities Act

    Americans with Disabilities Act
    This act prohibits discrimination based on disability. This protects people with disabilities in several areas. When it comes to employment it protects the employees and job seekers.
  • Motor Voter Act

    Motor Voter Act
    This act sets in place certain voter registration requirements with respect for federal elections. It requires that states offer voter registration at motor vehicle agencies.
  • Lawrence v Texas

    Lawrence v Texas
    Police who were responding to a weapons disturbance, entered Lawrences home where he was engaging in a consensual sexual act with another man, Garner. Both men were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
  • Obergefell v Hodges

    Obergefell v Hodges
    Many same-sex couples sued their state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of their bans on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples the same as it does to opposite-sex couples.