- Legal Analysis And Give Your Opinion On The Case Summarize The Facts Of The Case Refer Only To The Facts Provided In 1 (31.11 KiB) Viewed 90 times
Mendez v. Westminster
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Linksto an external site.)
Full case name
Mendez et al. v. Westminster School Dist. of Orange Countyet al.
Argued
February 18, 1946
Decided
April 14, 1947
Citation(s)
161 F.2d (Links to an externalsite.) 774 (Links to an external site.) (9th Cir.1947)
Case history
Prior action(s)
64 F.Supp. (Links to an externalsite.) 544 (Links to an external site.) (C.D.Cal. (Links to an external site.) 1946)
Holding
Separate educational facilities primarily used to segregatedpupils are inherently unequal and violate the Equal ProtectionClause (Links to an external site.), even if such facilitieshave the same layout and equal amenities, due to the notion thatsegregation promotes the creation of biases and hinders thelinguistic and cultural commonality between such segregatedgroups.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting
Francis Arthur Garrecht (Links to an externalsite.), William Denman (Links to an externalsite.), Clifton Mathews (Links to an externalsite.), Albert Lee Stephens Sr. (Links to an externalsite.), William Healy (Links to an externalsite.), William Edwin Orr (Links to an externalsite.)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV (Links to an external site.)Section 1 of Article IX of the Constitution ofCalifornia (Links to an external site.)Cal. Ed. Code §§ 8002-8004, 8251, 8501, 10051, 16004,16005 (Links to an external site.)
Mendez, et al v.Westminister [sic] School District of Orange County, etal, 64 F.Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal.1946),[1] (Links to an externalsite.) aff'd, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947) (enbanc),[2] (Links to an external site.) was a1947 federal court case that challenged Mexican remedial schoolsin Orange County, California (Links to an externalsite.). In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit (Links to an external site.), inan en banc (Links to an externalsite.) decision, held that the forced segregationof Mexican American (Links to an externalsite.) students into separate "Mexican schools" wasunconstitutional and unlawful, not because Mexicans were "white,"as attorneys for the plaintiffs argued, but because as US DistrictCourt Judge Paul J. McCormick ruled, "The equal protection of thelaws pertaining to the public school system in California is notprovided by furnishing in separate schools the same technicalfacilities, textbooks and courses of instruction to children ofMexican ancestry that are available to the other public schoolchildren regardless of their ancestry. A paramount requisite in theAmerican system of public education is social equality. It must beopen to all children by unified school association regardless oflineage."[3] (Links to an externalsite.) Magistrate McCormick went as far to state that"The evidence clearly shows that Spanish-speaking children areretarded in learning English by lack of exposure to its use becauseof segregation, and that commingling of the entire student bodyinstills and develops a common cultural attitude among the schoolchildren which is imperative for the perpetuation of Americaninstitutions and ideals."
Five Mexican-American fathers (Thomas Estrada, William Guzman,Gonzalo Mendez, Frank Palomino, and Lorenzo Ramirez) challenged thepractice of Mexican school segregation in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California (Linksto an external site.), in Los Angeles (Links to anexternal site.). They claimed that their children, along with 5000other children of "Mexican" ancestry, were victims ofunconstitutional discrimination by being forced to attend separate"schools for Mexicans" in the Westminster (Links to anexternal site.), Garden Grove (Links to an externalsite.), Santa Ana (Links to an external site.),and El Modena (Links to an external site.) schooldistricts of Orange County (Links to an externalsite.).
Mexican American school children in the 1940s
Mexican Americans, who were then considered to be white, werenormally unaffected by legal segregation and, in general theyalways went to segregated white schools. The Mendez family, whopreviously went to white schools without problems, suddenly foundtheir children forced into separate "Schools for Mexicans" whenthey came to Westminster - even though that was not the norm and itwas not legally sanctioned by the state. In the 1940s, a smallminority of school districts began to establish separatelanguage-based "Mexican Schools", arguing that Mexican children hadspecial needs because they were Spanish (Links to anexternal site.) speakers. The schools existed only forelementary children (K-4) and were intended to prepare them formainstream schools. But, since many districts began forcing allMexican elementary school children into "Mexican Schools"irrespective of language ability, it became a form of unlawfuldiscrimination that was superficially similar to legalized racesegregation.
Soledad Vidaurri went to the Westminster Elementary SchoolDistrict (Links to an external site.) to enroll herchildren and those of her brother Gonzalo Mendez: Gonzalo,Geronimo, and Sylvia (Links to an external site.). TheWestminster School informed Viduarri that her children could beadmitted to the school. However, Gonzalo, Geronimo, and Sylviacould not be admitted on the basis of their skin color. (Viduarri'schildren had light complexions and Basque (Links to anexternal site.) surnames and so would not be segregated into adifferent school.) Upon hearing the news, Viduarri refused to admither children to the school if her brother's children were notadmitted as well. The parents, Gonzalo and FelicitasMendez (Links to an external site.), tried to arrange forGeronimo, Gonzalo, and Sylvia to attend the school by talking tothe school administration, but both parties were not able to reachan agreement.
Gonzalo dedicated the next year to a lawsuit against theWestminster School District of Orange County. The school districtoffered to compromise by allowing the Mendez children to attend theelementary school without any other student of Mexican-Americandescent.
The Mendez family declined the offer and continued the lawsuit.The Mendez family believed in helping out the entire Mexicancommunity, instead of a handful of children. The Mendez familycovered most of the expenses for the various witnesses that wouldbe present in the case.[4] (Links to an externalsite.)
The plaintiffs were represented by an established JewishAmerican civil rights attorney David Marcus. Funding for thelawsuit was primarily paid for initially by the lead plaintiffGonzalo Mendez, who began the lawsuit when his three children weredenied admission to their local Westminsterschool.[5] (Links to an external site.)
Senior District Judge Paul J. McCormick, sitting in LosAngeles (Links to an external site.), presided at the trialand ruled in favor of Mendez and his co-plaintiffs on February 18,1946 in finding that separate schools for Mexicans to be anunconstitutional denial of equal protection.[6] (Links toan external site.) The school district appealed to theNinth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, whichupheld Judge McCormick's decision finding that the segregationpractices violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the case wasa victory for the families affected, it was narrowly focused on thesmall number of Mexican remedial schools in question and did notchallenge legal race segregation in California or elsewhere. AfterMendez, racial minorities were still subject to legal segregationin schools and public places.
Aftermath[edit (Links to an externalsite.)]
Governor Earl Warren (Links to an external site.), whowould later become Chief Justice of the United States, where hewould preside over the Brown v. Board ofEducation (Links to an external site.) case, signeda law outlawing segregation only where it was not legal - he didnot end legal segregation for non-white minorities in California.Several organizations joined the appellate case as amicuscuriae, including the NAACP (Links to an externalsite.), represented by Thurgood Marshall (Links to anexternal site.) and Robert L. Carter[7] (Links to anexternal site.) and the Japanese American CitizensLeague (Links to an external site.) (JACL). More than ayear later, on April 14, 1947, the United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling but noton equal protection grounds. It did not challenge the "separate butequal" interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that had beenannounced by the Supreme Court in Plessy v.Ferguson (Links to an external site.) in 1896.Instead, the Ninth Circuit held that the segregation was notracially based, but it had been implemented by the school districtswithout being specifically authorized by state law, and it was thusimpermissible irrespective of Plessy.
Legacy[edit (Links to an externalsite.)]
On December 8, 1997, the Santa Ana Unified School Districtdedicated the Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez Intermediate FundamentalSchool in Santa Ana, California.
In 2003, writer/producer Sandra Robbie received an Emmy Awardfor her documentary Mendez vs. Westminster: For All theChildren / Para Todos los Niños.
On September 14, 2007, the US Postal Service (Links toan external site.) honored the 60th anniversary of the rulingwith a 41-cent commemorative stamp.[8] (Links to anexternal site.) On November 15, 2007, it presentedthe Mendez v. Westminster stamp (Links toan external site.) to the Mendez family, at a press conferenceat the Rose Center Theater (Links to an externalsite.) in Westminster (Links to an externalsite.), California (Links to an external site.).
In September 2009, Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez HighSchool (Links to an external site.) opened in BoyleHeights. The school was named after Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez,parents of American civil rights activist SylviaMendez (Links to an external site.), who played aninstrumental role in the case.
On October 14, 2009, Chapman University (Links to anexternal site.)'s Leatherby Libraries (Links to anexternal site.) dedicated the Mendez et al v.Westminster et al Group Study Room and a collection ofdocuments, video and other items relating to the landmarkdesegregation case. Chapman also owns the last standing Mexicanschool building from the segregation era in Orange County.
On February 15, 2011, President Barack Obama (Links toan external site.) awarded the Presidential Medal ofFreedom (Links to an external site.) to Sylvia Mendez,the daughter of Gonzalo Mendez, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.She, along with her two brothers, Gonzalo, Jr. and Jerome, weresome of the Mexican-American students who were denied admission totheir local Westminster school, which formed the basis for thesuit. Sylvia was awarded the honor for her many years of workencouraging students to stay in school and to ensure that theimportance of Mendez v. Westminster in American history will not beforgotten.[5] (Links to an external site.)
In September 2011, the Museum of Teaching and Learning(MOTAL) (Links to an external site.), in partnership with ahalf-dozen government agencies and universities, opened anine-month exhibition about the case at the Old Orange CountyCourthouse (Links to an external site.) in Santa Ana,California. The exhibition, for which the team won a 2013 Award ofMerit from the American Association for State and LocalHistory (Links to an external site.), continues to travel toother locations to educate the public, both adults and students,about the details around this landmark case
legal analysis, and give your opinion on the case. Summarize the facts of the case. (Refer only to the facts provided in the attached case.) Issue: What is/ are the key legal issue(s) in the case? Rule of Law: What rules of law apply to the case? Application: How did the court apply the rules of law to the facts and circumstances of the case? Conclusion: What was the court's decision in the case?