Slaughterhouse Cases: The state of Louisiana made a monopoly of slaughtering operations and sold it to one specific company, eliminating all other companies against their will. The companies said that since it was not voluntary, it was considered involuntary servitude, and infringed on their equal protection rights and also burdened their access to liberty and property without due process. The first section forbids the landing or slaughtering of animals whose flesh is indented for food within certain boundaries. Another section authorizes the company to establish and erect within certain territory, one large scale slaughterhouse is to exist and the rest are not allowed business within those territories. Also, all other stock landings and slaughterhouses are to be closed as a result of this case. The legal issue in this situation is distinguishing if the creation of a monopoly violated either the 13th or 14th amendment when the operations were seized and sold. The holding of the case states that this was not a violation of any right given in the 13th or 15th amendments. The granting of this
…show more content…
She is white, and applied with a 3.8 gpa and a score of 161 on her LSAT. The University did admit that it takes race into consideration for the use of creating a more diverse school. It was held that the Schools interest in diversity was not in fact compelling enough to the court. After being brought to the court of Appeals, though, a binding precedent did establish this as compelling and they say it should be viewed under strict scrutiny.
The legal issue here is deciding wether the Law school has the right to take race into consideration when accepting and rejecting students with diversity being a driving factor. Does this Admission process violate the equal protection clause or the civil rights act of
She is white, and applied with a 3.8 gpa and a score of 161 on her LSAT. The University did admit that it takes race into consideration for the use of creating a more diverse school. It was held that the Schools interest in diversity was not in fact compelling enough to the court. After being brought to the court of Appeals, though, a binding precedent did establish this as compelling and they say it should be viewed under strict scrutiny.
The legal issue here is deciding wether the Law school has the right to take race into consideration when accepting and rejecting students with diversity being a driving factor. Does this Admission process violate the equal protection clause or the civil rights act of