Welcome back to Reading the Law with Marnie. In today’s episode, we cover Cases 31 through 40 — a series that explores the constitutional tensions of the late 20th century, as the Burger and Rehnquist Courts wrestle with questions of equality, federalism, freedom of religion, and the scope of congressional power.

If the first thirty cases built the architecture of civil rights and liberties, this next set tests its strength. How far can Congress go to enforce civil rights? How much religious freedom can coexist with general laws? And what happens when a president is subpoenaed?

Let’s begin with a turning point in the battle over school desegregation.

Before Swann, courts had struggled with how aggressively they could enforce school desegregation orders. This case gave them powerful tools to act.

Case 31: Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

Full Case Name: Swann et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education et al.

Decision Date: April 20, 1971

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Decision: Unanimous (9–0)

Famous Quotes:

• Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: “The Constitution is not violated by the use of race-conscious remedies aimed at dismantling a dual school system.”

Background:

After Brown v. Board, Southern schools resisted integration. Charlotte’s district had implemented “freedom of choice” plans that maintained segregation. The Court upheld busing and racial quotas as permissible tools to enforce desegregation.

Doctrine:

Broad Remedial Powers for Courts – Federal courts may use race-conscious remedies, including busing, to enforce desegregation in public schools.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Gary Orfield (assenting): Civil rights researcher; saw Swann as essential to achieving actual integration.

• Antonin Scalia (critical, later): Opposed the use of race as a permanent remedy.

• Kimberlé Crenshaw (assenting): CRT scholar; emphasized the need for structural remedies to systemic racism.

The next case shifts the focus from integration to equity. After the Court approved race-conscious remedies in Swann, could it also guarantee equal school funding? Rodriguez gave a sobering answer.

Case 32: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Decision Date: March 21, 1973

Opinion by: Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Decision: 5–4

Famous Quotes:

• Justice Powell: “Education, though not formally recognized as a fundamental right, is essential to the preservation of rights and liberties.”

Background:

Plaintiffs argued that Texas’s reliance on local property taxes for school funding discriminated against poor students. The Court ruled that education is not a fundamental right and wealth is not a suspect classification.

Doctrine:

No Fundamental Right to Equal School Funding – Inequities in school funding do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Scholarly Commentary:

• John E. Coons (critical): Advocated for school finance equity.

• Charles Reich (critical): Called it a retreat from Brown.

• Justice Thurgood Marshall (dissent): Warned the ruling denied justice to the children most in need.

With Rodriguez closing the door on funding equity, the next case, Milliken, narrowed the scope of school desegregation across district lines. The Court pulled back even further.

Case 33: Milliken v. Bradley (1974)

Decision Date: July 25, 1974

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Decision: 5–4

Famous Quotes:

• Chief Justice Burger: “Desegregation… does not require any particular racial balance.”

Background:

The Court struck down a federal desegregation plan that required cross-district busing between Detroit and its suburbs, unless there was proof of de jure segregation in every district involved.

Doctrine:

No Interdistrict Remedy Without Interdistrict Violation – Courts may not order busing across district lines unless segregation was actively caused by multiple districts.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Derrick Bell (critical): Saw the decision as sealing the fate of urban segregation.

• Richard Epstein (assenting): Supported local autonomy in education.

• Genevieve Siegel-Hawley (critical): Described Milliken as a turning point toward resegregation.

From desegregation and finance, we move now to student discipline. In Goss, the Court declared that even school suspensions require due process.

Case 34: Goss v. Lopez (1975)

Decision Date: January 22, 1975

Opinion by: Justice Byron White

Decision: 5–4

Famous Quotes:

• Justice Byron White: “Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

Background:

Ohio students were suspended from school without hearings. The Court held that public school students have due process rights and must receive notice and some form of hearing before suspension.

Doctrine:

Due Process for Students – Public education creates a property interest; students are entitled to due process before suspension.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Charles Alan Wright (assenting): Called it a fair balance between order and rights.

• Justice Powell (dissent): Argued it overstated the formality needed in school discipline.

• Catherine Ross (assenting): Saw it as foundational to student rights jurisprudence.

Now we pivot from schools to states. In National League of Cities, the Court imposed a limit on Congress’s power over state governments — marking the high-water mark of 1970s federalism.

Case 35: National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

Decision Date: June 24, 1976

Opinion by: Justice William Rehnquist

Decision: 5–4

Famous Quotes:

• Justice Rehnquist: “There are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress.”

Background:

The Court invalidated federal wage and hour regulations that applied to state employees, holding that they violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

Doctrine:

State Sovereignty Limits on Congress – Congress may not interfere with core functions of state governments.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Antonin Scalia (assenting): Praised the revival of structural federalism.

• Larry Kramer (critical): Argued for cooperative federalism over rigid dualism.

• Justice Brennan (dissent): Saw the ruling as a threat to national labor standards.

But that limit didn’t last. Garcia would sweep it aside and declare that states should defend their interests in Congress, not the courts.

Case 36: Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Decision Date: February 19, 1985

Opinion by: Justice Harry Blackmun

Decision: 5–4

Famous Quotes:

• Justice Blackmun: “We now reject, as unsound in principle and unworkable in practice, a rule of state immunity from federal regulation.”

Background:

The Court overturned Usery, holding that state-run mass transit systems must comply with federal wage laws.

Doctrine:

Political Safeguards of Federalism – States are protected by their role in the national political process, not judicial doctrines.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Larry Tribe (assenting): Called it a realistic approach to federalism.

• Sandra Day O’Connor (dissent): Warned it erased meaningful limits on federal power.

• Ernest Young (critical): Argued courts should protect state autonomy more rigorously.

Next, we return to the Free Exercise Clause. In Yoder, the Court carved out an exception to a state education law for a small religious community.

Case 37: Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Decision Date: May 15, 1972

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Decision: 7–0

Famous Quotes:

• Chief Justice Burger: “A way of life… may not be interfered with… unless it is somehow harmful to the public.”

Background:

Amish parents challenged Wisconsin’s law requiring children to attend school until age 16. The Court ruled the law violated their Free Exercise rights.

Doctrine:

Religious Exemptions from General Laws – The Free Exercise Clause can override state laws when sincerely held religious beliefs are substantially burdened.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Douglas Laycock (assenting): Supported the decision as a high point for religious liberty.

• Justice William O. Douglas (partial dissent): Worried about children’s own rights to education.

• Marci Hamilton (critical): Warned of letting religious belief trump civil obligations.

But just eighteen years later, Smith would drastically shift course — declaring that generally applicable laws don’t have to yield to religious practices.

Case 38: Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Decision Date: April 17, 1990

Opinion by: Justice Antonin Scalia

Decision: 6–3

Famous Quotes:

• Justice Scalia: “To make an individual’s obligation to obey a law contingent upon his religious beliefs… contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.”

Background:

Two Native American men were fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony and were denied unemployment benefits. The Court ruled in favor of the state.

Doctrine:

Neutral Laws of General Applicability – The Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from generally applicable laws.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Michael McConnell (critical): Called it a narrowing of religious freedom.

• Antonin Scalia (defense): Argued the rule was necessary for law and order.

• Nadine Strossen (critical): Worried about harm to minority faiths.

We now pivot to the limits of presidential power. During the Watergate scandal, Nixon refused to comply with a subpoena — and the Court answered.

Case 39: United States v. Nixon (1974)

Decision Date: July 24, 1974

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Decision: Unanimous (8–0)

Famous Quotes:

• Chief Justice Burger: “The President is not above the law.”

Background:

Nixon invoked executive privilege to withhold tapes. The Court unanimously ordered him to comply.

Doctrine:

Limited Executive Privilege – It exists, but cannot shield criminal evidence.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Raoul Berger (assenting): Called it a triumph for the rule of law.

• John Yoo (critical): Claimed it weakened the presidency.

• Jeffrey Rosen (assenting): Applauded judicial independence.

To close out this set, we look at separation of powers. In Chadha, the Court struck down a tool Congress had used to reverse agency decisions: the legislative veto.

Case 40: INS v. Chadha (1983)

Decision Date: June 23, 1983

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Decision: 7–2

Famous Quotes:

• Chief Justice Burger: “Explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution… define the respective functions of Congress and the Executive.”

Background:

Congress had used a one-house veto to overturn a deportation suspension. The Court said that violated bicameralism and presentment.

Doctrine:

Legislative Veto Unconstitutional – Congress cannot override executive actions without following full legislative procedure.

Scholarly Commentary:

• Louis Fisher (critical): Argued the veto was a needed oversight tool.

• Elena Kagan (assenting): Saw it as a necessary check on legislative overreach.

• Peter Strauss (critical): Worried it weakened congressional accountability.

That wraps up Cases 31 through 40. In this stretch, we watched the Court define the limits of desegregation remedies, pull back on educational equality, reframe religious liberty, and confront the imperial presidency. The Constitution proved flexible — and contested — as American society evolved.

In the next episode, we’ll cover Cases 41 through 50, where debates over free speech, gender equality, gay rights, and campaign finance take center stage.

Stay with me — we’re entering the era of culture wars and constitutional complexity.

Get full access to Marnie’s Substack at marniekhaw.substack.com/subscribe