Here, for example, petitioners have argued that the Jackson pools were closed because of ideological opposition to racial integration in swimming pools. Some evidence in the record appears to support this argument. On the other hand, the courts below found that the pools were closed because the city council felt they could not be operated safely and economically on an integrated basis. There is substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion. It is difficult or impossible for any court to determine the “sole” or “dominant” motivation behind the choices of a group of legislators. Furthermore, there is an element of futility in a judicial attempt to invalidate a law because of the bad motives of its supporters. If the law is struck down for this reason, rather than because of its facial content or effect, it would presumably be valid as soon as the legislature or relevant governing body repassed it for different reasons.
I remain impressed with the following factors: (1) No other municipal recreational facility in the city of Jackson has been discontinued. Indeed, every other service – parks, auditoriums, golf courses, zoo – that, once was segregated has been continued, and operates on a nonsegregated basis. One must concede that this was effectuated initially under pressure of the 1962 declaratory judgment of the federal court. (2) The pools are not part of the city’s educational system. They are a general municipal service of the nice-to-have but not essential variety, and they are a service, perhaps a luxury, not enjoyed by many communities. (3) The pools had operated at a deficit. It was the judgment of the city officials that these deficits would increase. (4) I cannot read into the closing of the pools an official expression of inferiority toward black citizens
Lemon v Kurtzmann is an important Establishment Clause case. The Lemon test came out of that case as a way to determine if a law violates the First Amendment. The first prong of the Lemon test is that the law must have a secular legislative purpose. That there may be religious arguments for the law are irrelevant so long as there is a plausible secular reason.
Similarly, so long as you can claim a plausible non-racist reason for a law, you can have it even if there are obvious racist arguments for the law. The court seemed to think there were valid safety and economic concerns.
My opinion of this case is that racists found a constitutionally valid loophole to avoid desegregating public pools.
“Q. Well, this is in the premise of my question, for you to prevail here, this racial overtone, I will assume, you must concede must be present. Now suppose you prevail, and suppose they lose economically year after year by increasing amounts. My question is, are they locked in forever?"
“A. If the question is are they locked in forever because of racial problems which cause a rise in economic difficulties in operating the pool, my answer is that they would be locked in.”
Nonsense. The courts aren’t required to give an unlimited benefit of the doubt upon demand. They’re allowed --required!-- to exercise some basic common sense when confronted with obvious bad-faith safety concerns raised by racist city officials. Courts do this kind of thing all the time! It’s why the first draft of Trump’s Muslim ban got slapped down, that was too obvious a display of bullshit even for Roberts.
That’s their job. If you tell Judge Judy it’s raining when you’re actually peeing on her head, she’s allowed to exercise basic judgement and call you a liar. As they say on the podcast, this is a thing courts do routinely.
Sure, but in this case the evidence is a joke. Their “evidence” amounts to a bunch of segregationists claiming they’re doing segregation for safety reasons. The courts aren’t required to believe that, it’s not some magical loophole.
Chief Justice Marshall intimated in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 10 U. S. 130, that the motives which dominate or influence legislators in enacting laws are not fit for judicial inquiry
Bad analogy. Determining intent is substantively different than assessing what occurred. Judges suck at the former, and there is hundreds of years of precedent telling them not to try. As far the latter, well, most of the judges in Palmer felt the record at trial supported the city’s argument.
Should citizens of Jackson or any other city be able to establish in court that public, tax=supported swimming pools are being denied to one group because of color and supplied to another, they will be entitled to relief. But that is not the case here.
What? Judges work out people’s intent every single day, it’s kind of part of their job. It’s not actually difficult to figure out the motives of avowed segregationist politicians who run on segregationist platforms and then enact segregationist policies.
It’s like when Trump announces a ban on Muslims entering the country, enacts a ban on Muslims entering the country, and then Trumpy officials go before the court and insist they totally weren’t trying to ban Muslims from entering the country. The courts are, in fact, allowed to put 2 and 2 together. This isn’t some grand epistemological challenge.
They didn’t establish any kind of plausible deniability in Palmer either, it’s just the court was so jacked up that they had an actual old-timey Alabama Klansman on the bench.
Marshall had no problem seeing through the bullshit.
After losing a hard fought legal battle to maintain segregation in public facilities, the Jackson, Mississippi, authorities now seek to pick and choose which of the existing facilities will be kept open. Their choice is rationalized on the basis of economic need and is even more transparent than putting the matter to a referendum vote.