SUPREME COURT: How effectively has the Court protected civil rights?

They might decide to twist the question a little by including 'since 2005' at the end of the question. In that case, focus your answer on the Robert's Court but it wouldn't hurt to occasionally compare and contrast with previous Courts e.g. Burger, Warren, Rehnquist

They could also ask 'How effectively has the Court protected civil liberties?'
The difference between civil rights and liberties is explained wonderfully here but for our level, they're pretty much the same.

Before we attempt the question, let's understand what exactly they are asking.

The key term here is civil rights. What are civil rights?

Historically, civil rights referred to the equal economic, social and political treatment of black people. Nowadays, you can extend this definition to any individual or minority group.

The US Constitution outlines American civil rights in the first 10 amendments  e.g. freedom of speech, right to own a gun, protection from unreasonable searches by the police etc + the 13th (abolished slavery) and 14th amendments (equal protection/right to privacy)


Next, let's think about how the Court can even protect civil rights. What power does it have in the political system? Yes, the power of judicial review. Through judicial review, the Court can declare laws as unconstitutional and overturn the rulings of previous cases.

SO the question is effectively asking 'Does the Court use judicial review to ensure each and every citizen is treated fairly under the law and is free to express themselves?' You have to then give a yes and no answer and say why you're saying yes and no. Simple as that

Ok so let's answer.

Intro
Give a brief overview of the subject. Why do civil rights need to be protected? How does the Court protect civil rights? Here, tell the examiner whether you think the Court has successfully protected civil rights

Main body

Pick four or five civil rights outlined in the Constitution. Has the Supreme Court protected this right?

1) 1st Amendment; Freedom of speech, religion, expression

YES - Consider cases such as Citizens United (2010), which protected freedom of speech of corporations and trade unions. Snyder v Phelps (2011), which upheld the rights of anti-gay protesters. McCutcheon v FEC (2014)

NO- Argue that Citizens United did not protect the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans. Rather, it paved the way for Super PACs, organisations which can raise and collect unlimited donations mostly spent on attack ads.
Consider cases which have reduced freedom of speech/religion e.g. ban on prayer in public schools


2) 2nd Amendment; Right to bear arms (gun rights)

YES- The Supreme Court has protected gun rights in cases such as USA V Lopez 1995 and DC v Heller (2008), which ruled that the Constitution gave Americans the individual right to own a gun

NO- The Supreme Court did not consider the rights of potential gun victims. Consider the Sandy Hook massacre, Colorado cinema shootings and the more recent Charleston church incident in June 2015

3) 4th and 5th Amendments

YES- Riley v California, ruled that police are not allowed to search mobile phones of those arrested, unless they have a warrant

NO- Salinas v Texas (2013), ruled that although an arrested person may have the right to remain silent, they must specifically say they want to remain silent in order activate their 5th amendment rights. Otherwise, their silence can be used against them

4)14th Amendment; equal protection, right to privacy, due process

YES- Roe v Wade (1973), which legalised abortion
Brown v Board of Education (1954), allowed black kids to attend the same schools as white kids
Lawrence v Texas (2003), ruled that the government had no business in sexual relationships of homosexuals
2015 same sex marriage ruling

NO- Gonzales v Carhart (2007), upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. Argue that this is a violation of a woman's right to privacy

Perhaps we could also bring in affirmative action here. Affirmative action can be viewed as a form of equal protection, as it levels the playing field for historically disadvantaged groups, both in education and employment. Thus, the Court's support of affirmative action in Grutter v Bollinger (2003) could be seen as a protection of civil rights, while the Court's support of the Michigan ban on affirmative action (2014) could be considered a failure to protect civil rights

However, affirmative action hinders equal protection as it prevents well-qualified white candidates from obtaining places at uni/other organisations. Thus, the Supreme Court's support of affirmative action could actually be considered a violation of civil rights

Conclusion

Pick the side you agree with and say why you agree with it. You could also say why you don't agree with the other argument