Con Law Question
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 3:19 pm
One of my sample exam questions asks me to compare/contrast City of Boerne v. Flores and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
I'm not seeing what the connection between the cases really is. Boerne says Congress must enforce the judiciary's definition of a substantive right, and can take a prophylactic enforcement step so long as it is within the bounds of enforcement. Swann holds that if there was formerly de jure segregation at a school, the court will assume that any de facto segregation is a result of the earlier law and insist that the school integrate by any means necessary.
What ties between the cases am I missing?
I'm not seeing what the connection between the cases really is. Boerne says Congress must enforce the judiciary's definition of a substantive right, and can take a prophylactic enforcement step so long as it is within the bounds of enforcement. Swann holds that if there was formerly de jure segregation at a school, the court will assume that any de facto segregation is a result of the earlier law and insist that the school integrate by any means necessary.
What ties between the cases am I missing?