COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY V. WILSON 122 F.3d 692 (1997) CASE BRIEF

COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY V. WILSON

122 F.3d 692 (1997)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wilson (D) appealed an order, which provided a preliminary injunction enjoining De from implementing and enforcing an initiative, Proposition 209, an amendment to the State constitution banning affirmative action.

FACTS: The people of the State of California adopted the California Civil Rights Initiative as an amendment to their Constitution. Proposition 209, provides in relevant part that the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. The California Ballot Pamphlet explained to voters that: A YES vote on [Proposition 209] means: The elimination of those affirmative action programs for women and minorities run by the state or local governments in the areas of public employment, contracting, and education that give 'preferential treatment' on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. A NO vote on this measure means State and local government affirmative action programs would remain in effect to the extent they are permitted under the United States Constitution. Proposition 209 passed by a margin of 54 to 46 percent; of nearly 9 million Californians casting ballots, 4,736,180 voted in favor of the initiative and 3,986,196 voted against it. On the day after the election, Ps claiming to represent the interests of racial minorities and women filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Proposition 209, first, denies racial minorities and women the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and, second, is void under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. The court granted an injunction stating that Ps demonstrated a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim. It held that Proposition 209 has a racial and gender focus which imposes a substantial political burden on the interests of women and minorities. The district court concluded, Ps have also demonstrated a likelihood of success on their pre-emption claims. D appealed. No California state court has yet construed the meaning or effect of Proposition 209. Ps asked a federal tribunal to enjoin flat-out a state constitutional amendment passed by a majority of the voters.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner