Sweatt v. Painter 9-0 for sweatt by jacob buchanan

In 1946, Mr. Sweat a black male tried to get into the University of Texas Law School. At the time the school wasn't accepting blacks so they threw away his application just because he was black; When he brought the issue to court the school tried to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students.
The court unanimously decided that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be let into the university. They found that the "Law School for Negroes" would be vastly unequal.
Did the Texas admissions scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes it's a protected liberty, yes its a fundamental liberty, yes it causes undo burden if he can't go he might not get the job he wants, no it doesn't forward government interest, and yes there are laws to help achieve the goal.
"Sweatt v. Painter." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/339us629. Accessed 29 Mar. 2017.

Credits:

Created with images by Pexels - "architecture bell tower bells" • DariuszSankowski - "phone screen technology" • KeithBurtis - "Gavel & Stryker" • TeroVesalainen - "question mark why problem" • Fæ - "Raglan Castle, I., Wales-LCCN2002708065" • yuelanliu - "book open range"

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.