California Vs Bakke Case Study

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

When considering the American medical system, it is clear that the policy solutions for disparities occurring outside the clinical encounter

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was argued on October 12, 1977 and decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 26, 1978. It was questioned if the University of California violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having an affirmative action policy that led to repeated rejection of Bakke’s application for admission to UC medical school at Davis.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The University of California, Davis Medical School reserved 16 spots out of 100 in any given class for underprivileged minorities. The respondent, when compared to students admitted under the special admissions program, had more favorable objective indicia of performance, while his race was the only distinguishing characteristic. The respondent sued, alleging that the special admissions program denied him equal protection of laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) are cases regarding the use of affirmative action programs in schools. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in universities is constitutional in certain circumstances, but racial quotas are unconstitutional. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is constitutional if race is treated as one factor among many, the purpose is to achieve a “diverse” classroom, and it is not an individualized review of the applicant. In Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education,

It is unlikely for Computin to be able to successfully suppress the evidence against him considering any avenue he could take would all be invalidated under the FISA Amendments act, specifically Section 702. One such avenue is claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Under the Fourth Amendment one can expect a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that is both subjective and objective. If Computin expected his laptop to be private and if society would also agree that such privacy is reasonable, he can claim that the court violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. Many cases have seen people try but fail to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legal case of Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress evidence that was obtained without a warrant, citing his Fourth Amendment rights that prevented warrantless searches. Even though this was a physical procedure that is different from the manner in which

The distinction between an act and a status would be best described by the case of Robinson v California in which the California statute makes it an offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics” (Brody and Acker, 2010). The actual act would be using the narcotics which is usually a criminal offense. However, the status would be addicted to narcotics. Just because someone is addicted to narcotics does not mean it is a criminal offense. Just the fact that they use the narcotics is.

Evidence demonstrates that the scarcity of underrepresented minorities among physicians prevents appropriate cultural competence within the health care system, limits the access to quality health care services and medical research, and weakens efforts to eliminate current health disparities. One solution to the lack of diversity in the medical profession is an increase in the number of minority physicians, which causes for an increased enrollment and commencement of minority students in health care professional schools. This is easier said than done there is a relatively small number of academically prepared minority students in the pool of medical/health program applicants. To achieve even modest degrees of diversity, admission standards need not be lowered but greater weight must be placed on other equally important indicators of merit when evaluating many underrepresented minority applicants. The United States government also plays an important role with funded programs that are aimed in increasing the representation of minorities in the health profession, such as the loan forgiveness program and other strategies through the Health Resources and Services Administration

It was really interesting to me that the author brought up the idea of affirmative action of medical school. I guess he was bothered that due to his status as a minority, that he may not have gotten into Duke’s medical school. I strongly believe that in every individual,

Take for example the story of Allan Bakke. The white student who possessed higher grades and test scores than a great percentage of other applicants. Bakke was denied admission into University of California's medical school simply because the board set aside sixteen positions out of 100, strictly for minorities. After taking the university to court the ruling was that Bakke be admitted into the University, regardless of ethnicity, which brings forth another idea. The programs that have been initiated throughout the United States within

Some changes were also made in both 1973 and 1974 admissions application form. In 1973, the application form candidates were asked to indicate if they wished to be considered ‘economically and/or educational disadvantaged’ applicants. This was due to a special admissions program that consisted of a separate committee and was only for applicants of minority backgrounds. In 1974, the application form added another question if the applicants wanted to be considered as members of a minority groups. Which to the Medical School minorities were ‘Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Asians and American Indians’ if they choose to fill out that part of the