Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Long 1950s as a Policy Era
- 3 Regulation, Litigation, and Reform
- 4 Courts and Agencies in the American Civil Rights State
- 5 The Politics of Labor Policy Reform
- 6 Teachers Unions and American Education Reform
- 7 Progressive Federalism and the Contested Implementation of Obama’s Health Reform
- 8 Federalism and the Politics of Immigration Reform
- 9 Trade Politics and Reform
- 10 The Politics of Intelligence Reform
- 11 Follow the Leader
- 12 Conclusion: Madison Upside Down
- Index
- References
4 - Courts and Agencies in the American Civil Rights State
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Long 1950s as a Policy Era
- 3 Regulation, Litigation, and Reform
- 4 Courts and Agencies in the American Civil Rights State
- 5 The Politics of Labor Policy Reform
- 6 Teachers Unions and American Education Reform
- 7 Progressive Federalism and the Contested Implementation of Obama’s Health Reform
- 8 Federalism and the Politics of Immigration Reform
- 9 Trade Politics and Reform
- 10 The Politics of Intelligence Reform
- 11 Follow the Leader
- 12 Conclusion: Madison Upside Down
- Index
- References
Summary
Major policy change almost always has multiple causes and generates a variety of far-reaching consequences, some intended, many not. This was certainly true of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s that culminated in passage of two of the most important laws in American history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) and the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The resulting destruction of the racial caste system in the South not only profoundly affected the position of African Americans within American society, but created a new party system in which the solid Democratic South became solidly Republican. Prohibitions against racial discrimination were quickly extended to ban discrimination based on gender, language, disability, and age. The civil rights revolution changed our understanding of federalism, the proper role of the courts, the powers of Congress, and the authority of administrative agencies. In short, this was a profound constitutional moment that rivaled that of the New Deal.
In this chapter I cannot hope to describe the events that precipitated the civil rights revolution or evaluate the extent to which these laws have reduced racial discrimination and inequality. For the latter I would direct the reader to succinct essays by Orlando Patterson and Jennifer Hochschild. As for the former, I will simply say that the traditional view – namely, that civil rights protests stretching from the 1955–56 Montgomery bus boycott to the 1963 March on Washington briefly made civil rights the most salient political issue in the nation, forcing citizens and politicians to choose between fidelity to the Constitution and the American creed on the one hand and more decades of hypocrisy and unrest on the other – remains more convincing than the various revisionisms that have accumulated over the years. I do not mean to suggest that other factors (such as the growing political power of African Americans in northern cities or the legislative skill of Lyndon Johnson or the fact that decades of international conflict with Nazi racism and Soviet totalitarianism shone a spotlight on our failure to abide by our own principles) were not important. No change as significant as this one can be attributed to a single cause. But in the end it was the nobility of the protestors and their cause and the hideousness of the southern response to them that forced Americans outside the South to decide whose side they were on.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America , pp. 77 - 102Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
, “The Paradox of Integration,” in The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s “Racial” Crisis (New York: Basic Books, 1997)Google Scholar
, “You Win Some, You Lose Some: Explaining the Pattern of Success and Failure in the Second Reconstruction,” in and , eds. Taking Stock: American Government in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
, Legal Restraints on Racial Discrimination in Employment (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1966), p. 205Google Scholar
, “Weak State, Strong Policy: Paradoxes of Race Policy in the United States, Great Britain, and France,” Studies in American Political Development 16 (2002): 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
’s Shaping Race Policy: The United States in Comparative Perspective (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
, “What is Sexual Harassment?” From Capital Hill to the Sorbonne (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003)Google Scholar
, “The French Model: Color-Blind Integration,” both in , ed., The Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Options for America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001): 241–69Google Scholar
, Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Strength of a Weak State: The Rights Revolution and the Rise of Human Resources Management Divisions,” American Journal of Sociology 104 (1998): 441–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Inventing Equal Opportunity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–71,” American Journal of Sociology 110 (2004): 709–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era,” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2010): 803–24; also see , “Why Can’t Americans See the State,” The Forum 7 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell, 1986)Google Scholar
, “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review 113 (2008): 752–772;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996)
, A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Law and American Political Development,” Law and Social Inquiry 33 (2008): 789–803;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 16Google Scholar
, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 15Google Scholar
U.S. v. Jefferson County Board of Education I, 372 F. 2d 859 (1966)
, The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), pp. 99Google Scholar
, Voting Rights and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections (Washington, DC: AEI, 2009)Google Scholar
, Maximization, Whatever the Cost: Race, Redistricting, and the Department of Justice (New York: Praeger, 2001)Google Scholar
, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy (Oxford, 1990), p. 261Google Scholar
, Implementation, Change, and the Federal Bureaucracy (New York: Teachers College Press, 1977), p. 14Google Scholar
, On the Limits of the Law: The Ironic Legacy of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 51–52Google Scholar
, The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1969), pp. 241–43Google Scholar
, Crusaders in the Courts: Legal Battles of the Civil Rights Movement, Anniversary Edition (New York: Twelve Tables Press, 2004), p. 443Google Scholar
, Employment Discrimination Law: Visions of Equality in Theory and Doctrine, second edition (St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press, 2007), p. 152Google Scholar
Quarles v. Phillip Morris, 279 F. Supp. 505 (E.D.Va., 1968), at 516
, Modern Law: The Law Transmission System and Equal Employment Opportunity (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), p. 75.Google Scholar
, Ironies of Affirmative Action: Politics, Culture, and Justice in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 127.Google Scholar
, “The Law of Affirmative Action In and After the Civil Rights Act of 1991: Congress Invites Judicial Reform,” George Mason Law Review 6 (1997): 87Google Scholar
, Equality Transformed: A Quarter-Century of Affirmative Action (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishing, 1991)Google Scholar
Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), p. 87
Griggs v. Duke Power 401 U. S. 424 (1971)
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405 (1975)
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (1976)
Griggs v. Duke Power 401 U. S. 424 (1971) Emphasis added
, Implementation, Change and the Federal Bureaucracy (New York: Teachers’ College Press, 1978), pp. 106–07Google Scholar
, The Presidency and Black Civil Rights: Eisenhower to Nixon (Hackensack, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1971), p. 126Google Scholar
, “Judicial Evolution of the Law of School Integration since Brown v. Board,” Law and Contemporary Problems 39 (1975): 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Let Them Be Judged: The Judicial Integration of the Deep South (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1978)Google Scholar
Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430 (1968)
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971)
and , Equality and Education: Federal Civil Rights Enforcement in the New York City School System (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau v. Nichols 414 U. S. 563 (1974)
Guardians Association of NYC Police Dept. v. Civil Service Commission 463 U. S. 582 (1983)
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools 503 U. S. 60 (1992)
Gebster v. Lago Vista Independent School District 524 U. S. 274 (1998)
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education 526 U. S. (1999)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275 (2001)
Jackson v. Birmingham Boar of Education, 544 U. S. 167 (2005)
Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 565 U. S. – (2012)
Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, 563 U. S. – (2011)
, Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002)Google Scholar
EDF v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 589 (D.C. Cir., 1971) at 597
Portland Cement Assoc. v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d 375 (D.C. Cir., 1973), at 394
Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F. 2d 1109 (D.C. Cir., 1971), at 1111
, “The Court Against the Courts: Hostility to Litigation as an Organizing Theme in the Rehnquist Court’s Jurisprudence,” Texas Law Review 84 (2006): 1097Google Scholar
, “Deregulating the States: The Political Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court,” in and , eds., Institutions and Public Law: Comparative Approaches (New York: Peter Lang, 2005)Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.