Mendez v. Westminster School District, 1947

• The issue in this case was students of Mexican and Latin descent were denied admissions into schools within their district and were instead put into segregated schools. The Ninth Circuit found that segregation of school children in California violates equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. It reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection applies because there was no California law that provides for segregation of school children based on race. 

​

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954

• The issue in this case was whether public schools can segregate on the basis of race. The Court found segregation as a denial of equal protection of the laws. The Court reasoned that education is an important social function, and segregation of schools based on race creates a feeling of inferiority that has a detrimental effect on learning and education.

​

Lau v. Nichols, 1974

• The Court looked at whether the San Francisco Unified School District denial of remedial English instruction violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found the law discriminated on account of race, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court reasoned that students who do not understand English or do not have basic English skills are denied meaningful education and cannot effectively participate in public education.

​

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

• The Court looked at whether the UC Davis Medical School’s special admissions program operated under a racial quota that excluded non-minority students in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that race can be a factor in admissions decisions to achieve educational diversity. However, admissions programs, such as the UC Davis Medical School special admissions programs, acted as a racial quota and violated equal protection.

​

Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

• The Court looked at whether the use of race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The Court found the University of Michigan’s use of race in its admissions decisions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It found the admissions policy of assigning additional points for race to an applicant was not narrowly tailored to promote or achieve educational diversity in its undergraduate student body population.

​

Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003

• The Court looked at whether the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race as a factor in admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a school to use a narrowly tailored method of considering race in its admissions decision to promote diversity. Universities cannot establish fixed racial quotas for admissions, but admissions programs can use race as a “plus” factor to achieve diversity. The admissions programs must be flexible in the evaluation of an individual and not make race a defining factor of the application.

​​

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 2017

• The Supreme Court looked at whether the school district provided Endrew with an appropriate program for his educational benefit and progress. The Court stated that to meet the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, schools must offer appropriate, reasonably calculated individualized education programs that allow students with particular circumstances to progress.

​