Case Brief

Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa

539 U.S. I03 (U.S. SUP. Ct. 2003)

Holding No, there is no violation to the Equal Protection Clause.

Reasoning Even though the Equal Protection Clause states, “no State shall... deny to any person… the equal protection of the laws,” it doesn’t distinguish the tax purposes within a state. Not every provision in a law must share a single objective. The riverboats were in a financial crisis, so the legislators wanted to help them out by keeping the tax at 20 percent. If rising the tax percent on the riverboats, they will possible relocate to other states instead. Therefore, the tax differences between the race tracks and the riverboats were only meant to help the economic development of the riverboats.

Result Iowa Supreme Court decision reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. I

127 S. Ct. 2738 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2007)

Facts The school districts in Seattle, Washington, and Jefferson county, Kentucky, planned school assignments to distinguish students based on their race to see which high schools they should attend in order to have racially diverse high schools. An organization of Seattle parents and the mother of a Jefferson County student filed separate suits against the school districts that their school assignments are a violation to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

History The Seattle parents and the mother of a Jefferson County student sued the school districts, stating that their school assignment violated the Equal Protection Clause. P in the Seattle case lost in the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit affirmed. P in the Jefferson County case lost in the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the school districts’ petitions for a writ of certiorari.

Issue Are the school assignments based on the...