Possible Effects of The Supreme Court Composition on Cases
This paper will discuss the effects of a change in the Supreme Court composition on two constitutional issues in controversial case law. These issues are equal protection and First Amendment speech cases The paper will attempt to deduce patterns in the cases described in order to predict how the cases would be decided in the future. The paper will look at certain cases involving the Equal Protection Clause, federal preemption of state laws, and free speech. The last section of the paper will discuss the issues facing the federal district court in the case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 209.
The subissue in this area which will be examined is that of racial districting. Two important cases were decided in the 1990s concerning the constitutionality of racial districting: Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson. In Shaw, the Court held that white plaintiffs could bring a suit under the Equal Protection Clause challenging a reapportionment plan as "racial gerrymandering." The plan had been adopted with the intention of bolstering black voting strength by drawing unusually-shaped districts, including one which was 160 miles long and no wider than the interstate corridor which it followed for much of its length. Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor said that where "redistricting legislation ... is so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race,'" courts should apply the same strict scrutiny test applied in other cases involving racial classifications created by the state. In Miller, the Court followed the ruling in Shaw and further explained that in order to have a discriminatory purpose, the actors must have been predominantly motivated by race, not just have been aware of race in making their decision.
What is interesting about these two cases, from the perspective of this paper, is that the majority opinions ...