The legislature of the fictitious state of Xanadu passes a law that states “All people are welcome at all state-run swimming, beach, and golf facilities, as long as they are white. Non-whites may not use any of those facilities.”
Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.
A week later, the state passes a new law that reads “Because we don’t believe that we are capable of managing integrated swimming, beach, and golf facilities, we are hereby closing all such state-run facilities.” Brenda sues again in federal court, asking the court to rule that the closure of the facilities is likewise unconstitutional. Brenda argues that even though the closure itself is not discriminatory since it applies equally to everyone, the closure should nevertheless be prevented because it was obviously done for a purpose that implies discrimination against non-whites.
You are a clerk in the federal district court for the District of Xanadu. Please find one Federal case from any jurisdiction that would be very relevant to apply to this scenario. Summarize the facts of the case, discuss the Court’s reasoning, and explain why you agree or disagree with the Court’s ruling in terms of the 14th Amendment. Also, explain how that case could be applied to our scenario.
An IRAC-style essay is appropriate for this assignment.
Do you need help with this assignment or any other? We got you! Place your order and leave the rest to our experts.