法律英语casebrief.docx

1、法律英语casebrief1Title ：Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas2 Facts: Summarize the facts of the case. List only the essential facts that you need to understand the holding and reasoning of the case.minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obt

2、aining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the e

3、qual protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.This case is a consolidation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segre

4、gation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.In all but one case, a three judge federal district court cited Plessy v. Ferguson in denying relief under the “separate but equal” doctrine. On appeal to

5、the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that segregated schools were not and could not be made equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal protection of the laws.3 Procedure: Most of the cases that youll read in law school will be appellate court decisions. In this section, you want to

6、list what happened in the lower court(s). Do not go into too much detail. One or two sentences are sufficient for this section.In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called separate but equal doctrine announce

7、d by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered

8、that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.4 Issue(s): What is/are the question(s) facing the court? Form the issue questions in a way that they can be answered by yes or no.Do separate but equal laws in the area of public education deprive

9、 black children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive

10、 the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?5 Holding: How did the court answer the issue question(s)? YES/NO?We conclude that in the field of public

11、education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protec

12、tion of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.No. The race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools violates the Equal

13、Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren (J. Warren) stated that even if the “tangible” factors of segregated schools are equal, to separate black children from others of similar age and qualifications solely on the basis of race, generates a f

14、eeling of inferiority with respect to their status in the community and may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone. Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourtee

15、nth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adop

16、ted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a f

17、eeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction

18、 of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supporte

19、d by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.6 Reasoning: This is the most important section of your case brief. Here you want to list the reasoning of the majority in reaching its decision. You can actually be quite detailed in this section. List what the

20、 law was before this case was decided and how the law has changed after this decision. Law professors love to discuss the reasoning of a case in class discussions.1.education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expect

21、ed to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education., Such an opportunity where the st ate has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 2.Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the co

22、lored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore,

23、 has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system. 布朗诉托皮卡教育局案（Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 全名 Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al

24、.，简称 Brown case）是一件美国史上非常重要、具有指标意义的一件诉讼案。该案于1954年5月17日由美国最高法院做成决定，法院判决种族隔离本质上就是一种不平等（inherently unequal），因此原告与被告双方所争执的“黑人与白人学童不得进入同一所学校就读”的种族隔离法律必须排除“隔离但平等”（separate but equal）法律原则的适用（该原则由普莱西诉弗格森案简称 Plessey case所建立）1，因此种族隔离的法律因为剥夺了黑人学童的入学权利而违反了美国宪法第14条修正案中所保障的同等保护权（equal protection）2而违宪，该法律因而不得在个案中适

25、用，学童不得基于种族因素被拒绝入学。因为本判决的缘故，终止了美国社会中存在已久白人和黑人必须分别就读不同公立学校（public school，这里仅限于中小学 elementary school）的种族隔离现象。从本判决后“隔离但平等”的法律原则被推翻，任何法律上的种族隔离随后都可能因违反宪法所保障的同等保护权而被判决违宪；同时本案也开启了接下来数年中美国开始废止一切有关种族隔离的措施；美国的运动也因为本案迈进一大步，此后数年中美国社会的种族融合与扩方兴未艾。Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),1 was a l

26、andmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the

27、 Warren Courts unanimous (90) decision stated that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integra

28、tion and the civil rights movement.Briggs caseBriggs v. Elliott9的发生是从1947年当地的家长们要求学校提供接送学童上下学的校车开始的10。当地的黑人学校不仅校舍差，和白人学校相比还少了接驳车，黑人学童必须走路上学。黑人学校的校长 Rev. Joseph Armstrong DeLaine 接触白人学校的管理者要求他们提供校车以帮助黑人学童们，但白人学校的管理人提出反驳，认为黑人缴的税不够多，无法支付接驳车的开销，因此要求白人纳税者提供接驳服务并不公平。DeLaine 写信请求州政府教育当局的协助也没有发挥作用，最后黑人学童家长联

29、合募了一笔钱买了一台二手车充作接驳车用，然而后续的维修及燃料费用仍然是一个大问题。隔年 DeLaine 决定采取法律行动，虽然因为一些技术细节遭法院驳回，但在1949年，DeLaine 收集到足够量的签名，再次提起集体诉讼（Class Action），同时 NAACP 也决定支助他们的诉讼费用。这次的诉讼不只要求校车，另外还积极要求州政府提供平等的教育设施。两个月后，诉讼的目标从要求改善设施转为攻击种族隔离设施。法院引用了“隔离但平等”的原则，判决原告败诉，但是要求教育当局改善黑人学校的设施。NAACP 不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来 Brown case 的一部份。Briggs

30、 case 在地方引起了很大的反弹，几个原告分别被老板解雇，而校长 DeLaine 也被撤职，他的房子更是被仇视者烧了。在判决中提出不同意见支持原告的法官 Walter Waring 也被南卡罗莱那州（South Carolina）众议院和议罢免。Davis caseDavis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County11是从一群黑人学生的罢课活动开始的12。在当时黑人学生获得高中文凭的唯一方式是前往私立学校就读，这些学校通常是当地的教会所经营的。而中小学则是因为当地人口较少而由郡教育局所设立，而非由市教育局或镇教育局主导。罢课事件发生所在的

31、 Prince Edward County 的 Robert Moton High School 提供的学制比一般高中少了一年，只要读到十一年级即可毕业，因此吸引了邻近地区的许多黑人学生就读。由于校舍狭小加上学生众多，上课品质自然非常的差，当地黑人社区因此讨论是否要向教育当局要求改善，然而因为当地黑人的生活很大一部份无法脱离白人而独立，有些人深怕提起诉讼会招来白人的反感而报复，因此意见分成了两派。最后在 Rev. Francis Griffin（当地 NAACP 律师兼 Moton High School 学生会长）的促使下，和校长 Boyd Jones 向教育当局提出诉𫖸（p

32、etition）请求改善学校措施。诉𫖸提交后的几个月，教育当局没有做出任何回应，不满升到最高点，由于学生长期累积的不满，加上当地黑人有杯种族隔离措施的经验，罢课行动于是展开。当时十六岁的 Barbara Rose Johns 及其他的学生领导人在 Moton High School 组织了一个共450个黑人学生参与的罢课运动，一直持续了十天，直到学生们寻求 NAACP 的法律咨询，NAACP 并且决定提供协助提出诉讼为止，罢课活动才告结束。法院在本案中判决教育当局必须改善黑人学校的设施，但是引用了“隔离但平等”的原则拒绝原告黑人学生进入白人学校就读。NAACP 不满此判决而提出上诉至最高法院，因此成为后来 Brown case 的一部份。编辑 Gebhart caseBelton v. Gebhart (Bulah v. Gebhart)13是由两件被告相同的案子合并而成的14。本案中牵涉两所学校 Howard High School in Wilmington 以及只有一间教室的 Hockessin 小学。Howard High School的许多黑人学生必须搭车近一小时才能到达学校，校舍相当拥挤且座落于工业区，缺乏适合的教育环境，师资不良且课程缺乏，对于职业训练课程有兴趣的学生还必须自行走路离校修习。他们自己的社区中有