"Separate but equal" was a legal doctrine saying the government could require racially separate public facilities (schools, trains, restaurants) as long as the separate facilities were supposedly equal. It came from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), where the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause narrowly and allowed states to pass laws enforcing racial segregation—that’s called de jure segregation. Because the Court accepted that separate facilities didn’t automatically mean inequality, segregation was treated as constitutional for decades. That changed in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), when the Court found that segregated public schools are inherently unequal and violate the Fourteenth Amendment. For AP Gov, know Plessy and Brown, the Equal Protection Clause, and the shift from allowing restrictions on minority rights to protecting them (EK 3.12.A.1 i–ii). For a focused review see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Short answer: the Court changed because the law, facts, and national context changed—and the justices reinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson upheld “separate but equal,” letting states keep de jure segregation. Over the next decades, legal strategy (NAACP lawyers), social science evidence, and civil-rights activism showed segregation was inherently unequal. In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education the Earl Warren Court ruled school segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, rejected “separate but equal,” and began dismantling legalized segregation. The Court applied broader scrutiny to race-based state actions and treated racial classifications as suspect. (Remember later cases—e.g., Shaw v. Reno—show the Court sometimes protects majority voting rights while still applying strict scrutiny to race-based classifications.) If you want the AP-focused breakdown and required case details for exam prep, see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and try practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Short answer: courts balance majority rule and minority rights by applying constitutional tests and context—sometimes upholding restrictions, sometimes striking them down. Why it varies: earlier decisions (Plessy v. Ferguson) allowed de jure segregation under the “separate but equal” idea, so minority rights were restricted. Later cases (Brown v. Board of Education) used the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the Court’s changing view to say race-based school segregation is unconstitutional. Today courts use tools like strict scrutiny for race-based classifications and also weigh competing principles (e.g., preventing racial gerrymandering vs. allowing majority-minority districts). Shaw v. Reno shows the Court can limit majority-drawing of districts if race is the predominant factor. For the AP exam: be ready to compare cases (SCOTUS Comparison FRQ) and use terms like de jure/de facto segregation, strict scrutiny, racial gerrymandering. Review this topic’s study guide on Fiveable (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government) to prep.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are opposite on race and the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy upheld "separate but equal," allowing state-sanctioned (de jure) racial segregation in public facilities—so the Court said segregation didn’t violate Equal Protection. Brown, decided by the Earl Warren Court, overturned that for public schools: it held race-based school segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment because “separate” is inherently unequal (the Court noted harmful effects on Black children). Brown moved the Court toward strict scrutiny of race classifications and began dismantling legal segregation (de jure), though de facto segregation persisted. For AP SCOTUS comparison FRQs, be ready to state facts, the issue, holdings, and reasoning for each (see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii); unit review (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government)).

Good question—the Court didn’t reject majority-minority districts because it hates minority representation; it worried about using race as the predominant line-drawing factor. In cases like Shaw v. Reno the Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and strict scrutiny: race-based districting must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored. Creating districts solely to group voters by race risks racial gerrymandering and treating citizens primarily as racial blocs, which the Court has struck down. That said, the Court has allowed majority-minority districts when they’re a narrowly tailored remedy for past discrimination or required by the Voting Rights Act to ensure minorities can elect representatives of their choice. For AP review, focus on Shaw v. Reno (racial gerrymandering), strict scrutiny, and the tension between protecting minority voting rights and preventing race-dominant mapmaking (see the Topic 3.12 study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For practice, try related SCOTUS questions on Fiveable practice (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Short answer: yes—the Court has sometimes limited minority rights. Key examples you should know for Topic 3.12: - Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)—created the “separate but equal” doctrine, letting states impose racially segregated schools, restaurants, hotels, etc., and restricting African American access to equal public accommodations (later overturned by Brown). - Korematsu v. United States (1944)—upheld Japanese-American internment during WWII, allowing the government to remove civil liberties from a racial minority in the name of “military necessity.” - Shaw v. Reno (1993)—limited race-based redistricting by holding that majority-minority districts drawn predominantly on race can violate the Equal Protection Clause (the Court protected majority rights by restricting race-based districting). - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)—struck down racial quotas in admissions, restricting some race-conscious affirmative-action practices. Review these cases and their Fourteenth Amendment/Equal Protection reasoning in the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For unit review and practice problems, see Unit 3 (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3) and Fiveable’s practice bank (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Start with a clear thesis: say the Court’s record is inconsistent because it has both upheld government-sanctioned discrimination (de jure) and later required strict protection under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Then organize body paragraphs by evidence + analysis: - Paragraph 1 (restriction): Summarize Plessy v. Ferguson and “separate but equal,” explain how it allowed state-sanctioned racial segregation (EK 3.12.A.1.i). Connect to de jure vs. de facto segregation. - Paragraph 2 (protection): Use Brown v. Board to show the Court reversed course, holding race-based school segregation unconstitutional and applying equal protection (EK 3.12.A.1.ii). Explain shift toward strict scrutiny for race. - Paragraph 3 (limits on minority-protective remedies): Discuss Shaw v. Reno and majority-minority districting/racial gerrymandering—how the Court sometimes protects the majority’s shape of representation (EK 3.12.A.1.iii). Mention Bakke and affirmative action tensions. - Paragraph 4 (synthesis): Explain legal principle causing inconsistency: changing standards (deference vs. strict scrutiny), different factual contexts, and political/era influences (Earl Warren Court vs. later Courts). Finish with a short conclusion tying cases to modern statutes (Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act) and why this matters for equal protection analysis. For quick review and cases to cite, see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and practice FRQ prep (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Between the 1890s and the 1950s the Court shifted because legal strategy, social change, and a different Court majority combined to make segregation look both unconstitutional and unsustainable. Key factors: the NAACP’s long strategy (Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall) brought test cases and used social-science evidence (like the Doll studies) to show “separate” was inherently unequal. Demographic shifts (the Great Migration), WWII and Cold War politics made racial inequality an international embarrassment, increasing pressure for reform. The Warren Court (and allies) were more willing to read the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause as forbidding state-imposed, race-based school segregation. Practically, Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was overturned by Brown v. Board because judges accepted that segregation stigmatized Black children and denied equal education. For AP review, focus on how legal arguments + social context + Court composition produced the shift (see the Topic 3.12 study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For more practice on related cases, check unit resources (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Majority-minority districting is when mapmakers draw a congressional or state legislative district so a racial or ethnic minority (like Black or Hispanic voters) makes up a majority of that district. The idea is to help those groups elect candidates of their choice and comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the Supreme Court has sometimes pushed back: in Shaw v. Reno (1993) the Court said race can’t be the dominant factor in drawing districts if it leads to oddly shaped maps—that can be racial gerrymandering and violate the Equal Protection Clause. So courts balance protecting minority voting rights (VRA) against preventing race-based districting that treats people primarily by race. If you want a quick AP-aligned refresher, see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For broader review or 1,000+ practice questions, check the unit page (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

"Separate but equal" (Plessy v. Ferguson) had deep, long-term effects on African Americans. Legally sanctioned de jure segregation denied equal access to quality schools, jobs, housing, restaurants, and public services, which reinforced economic and social inequality for generations. Segregated schools produced resource gaps in education that limited upward mobility; segregated neighborhoods and labor markets restricted wealth and political power. Social stigma and systemic discrimination persisted even where laws didn’t require segregation (de facto segregation). These harms set the stage for the Civil Rights Movement and later Supreme Court decisions (Brown v. Board of Education) and laws like the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) that aimed to restore equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and apply stricter review to race-based policies. For AP review, this ties directly to LO 3.12.A and cases listed in the CED; see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

The Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment) requires states to treat people similarly—but how the Court applies it depends on context. - Race-based classifications get strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored. That’s why Plessy’s “separate but equal” (de jure segregation) was later overturned in Brown v. Board—segregation by law failed strict scrutiny and was ruled unconstitutional. - The Court distinguishes de jure (by law) from de facto (by practice) segregation; Brown targeted legally enforced segregation. - For policies like affirmative action (Regents v. Bakke), race can be considered but programs face strict scrutiny and must meet narrow tailoring. - In redistricting (Shaw v. Reno), the Court used Equal Protection to strike down racial gerrymanders—districts drawn predominantly by race can’t ignore traditional districting principles. The Court balances protecting minority voting rights (Voting Rights Act) with prohibiting racial sorting that violates equal protection. For AP prep, know facts, issues, holdings, and reasoning for these cases (see the Topic 3.12 study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and practice SCOTUS comparison questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Sometimes the Court sides with the majority because of legal rules, precedent, and limits on judicial power. Historically, Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) shows how precedent can uphold majority-biased laws until the Court reconsiders (Brown v. Board overturned that). The Court also balances “state action”—it often only strikes laws when they clearly violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or fail strict scrutiny (race-based classifications get the highest review). In cases like Shaw v. Reno, the Court sided with majority interests by limiting race-based districting when it looked like racial classifications, not legitimate policy, were used (that’s racial gerrymandering). Sometimes justices defer to legislatures (political-question or federalism concerns) or follow narrow holdings that protect majoritarian rules (e.g., limits on majority-minority districts). For AP prep, focus on LO 3.12.A examples (Plessy, Brown, Shaw, Bakke) and practice applying strict scrutiny vs. deference (see the Topic 3.12 study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For more practice, try Fiveable’s question bank (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

State laws set the on-the-ground rules (e.g., Jim Crow “separate but equal” laws) while the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to either allow or limit those laws. Early on the Court upheld state segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), which legally restricted minority rights (de jure segregation). Later the Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to strike down race-based school segregation (Brown v. Board), protecting minority rights. Congress and federal statutes (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965) also reinforced Court rulings. But the Court can limit remedies for minorities too—e.g., strict scrutiny in affirmative-action and racial-districting cases (Regents v. Bakke; Shaw v. Reno) sometimes restricts race-based majority-minority districts. This back-and-forth is exactly LO 3.12.A: state laws create conflicts the Court resolves, sometimes restricting and sometimes protecting minority rights. For a focused review, see the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii). For broader unit review and practice Qs, check Unit 3 (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3) and Fiveable practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Here are the main Supreme Court cases you should know for Topic 3.12—short list with why they matter (facts, issue, holding, reasoning are what the AP will test): - Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)—established "separate but equal" (allowed state-sanctioned, de jure segregation). - Brown v. Board of Education (1954)—overturned Plessy for public schools; race-based segregation violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)—limited affirmative action: race can be a factor but strict quotas are unconstitutional. - Shaw v. Reno (1993)—racial gerrymandering/majority-minority districting can violate Equal Protection; created race-based redistricting scrutiny. (Also know Baker v. Carr and Voting Rights Act/Civil Rights Act context for how courts and Congress addressed representation and voting.) On the exam you’ll often need to compare a required case’s facts, holding, and reasoning to another case—practice that on the SCOTUS comparison FRQ. Review the Topic 3.12 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-3/balancing-minority-majority-rights/study-guide/gVZHOCAdD33bTWctB3Ii) and do practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).