Room4Debate: Does the Supreme Court Arizona Ruling Pave Path To Racial Profiling?

Share

Explore Our Galleries

An NAACP flyer campaigning for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 1922, but was filibustered to defeat in the Senate. Dyer, the NAACP, and freedom fighters around the country, like Flossie Baily, struggled for years to get the Dyer and other anti-lynching bills passed, to no avail. Today there is still no U.S. law specifically against lynching. In 2005, eighty of the 100 U.S. Senators voted for a resolution to apologize to victims' families and the country for their failure to outlaw lynching. Courtesy of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Some Exhibits to Come – One Hundred Years of Jim Crow
Mammy Statue JC Museum Ferris
Bibliography – One Hundred Years Of Jim Crow
Claude, age 23, just months before his 1930 murder. Courtesy of Faith Deeter.
Freedom’s Heroes During Jim Crow: Flossie Bailey and the Deeters
Souvenir Portrait of the Lynching of Abram Smith and Thomas Shipp, August 7, 1930, by studio photographer Lawrence Beitler. Courtesy of the Indiana Hisorical Society.
An Iconic Lynching in the North
Lynching Quilt
Claxton Dekle – Prosperous Farmer, Husband & Father of Two
Ancient manuscripts about mathematics and astronomy from Timbuktu, Mali
Some Exhibits to Come – African Peoples Before Captivity
Shackles for Adults & Children from the Henrietta Marie
Some Exhibits to Come – The Middle Passage
Slaveship Stowage Plan
What I Saw Aboard a Slave Ship in 1829
Arno Michaels
Life After Hate: A Former White Power Leader Redeems Himself

Breaking News!

Today's news and culture by Black and other reporters in the Black and mainstream media.

Ways to Support ABHM?

By Laurie Kellman, Associated Press

Reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling
Reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling

Congressional Democrats and Republicans scrambled for election-year gain from the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday that threw out key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law but upheld one that requires police to check the status of people who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally.

[…]

The court unanimously upheld the “show me your papers” requirement of the state’s law. But even there, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges, and they blunted somewhat its effectiveness by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges.

The court struck down three major provisions of the Arizona law, including one requirement for all immigrants to obtain or carry registration papers, another making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and a third allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Democrats said the decision shows President Barack Obama was right to challenge the law’s constitutionality and praised him for deferring the deportation of some young illegal immigrants. But they also said the decisions could encourage discrimination.

Read more of the story to see the republican response here.

This case is reminiscent of voter ID laws, some of which have been struck down.

Follow our breaking news to stay updated with issues related to racism.

Comments Are Welcome

Note: We moderate submissions in order to create a space for meaningful dialogue, a space where museum visitors – adults and youth –– can exchange informed, thoughtful, and relevant comments that add value to our exhibits.

Racial slurs, personal attacks, obscenity, profanity, and SHOUTING do not meet the above standard. Such comments are posted in the exhibit Hateful Speech. Commercial promotions, impersonations, and incoherent comments likewise fail to meet our goals, so will not be posted. Submissions longer than 120 words will be shortened.

See our full Comments Policy here.

Leave a Comment