A) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka CORRECT This is the correct answer because Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was the landmark Supreme Court case that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. The Court ruled that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning the 'separate but equal' doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson. This decision was a major victory for the civil rights movement and paved the way for desegregation across the nation. The case was argued by Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African American Supreme Court Justice.
B) Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association INCORRECT Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016) was a case about public-sector union fees, not school segregation. The plaintiffs argued that mandatory union fees for non-members violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court was deadlocked 4-4 after Justice Scalia's death, leaving the lower court's decision in favor of the union in place. This case is unrelated to the Equal Protection Clause and racial segregation.
C) Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York INCORRECT Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York (2006) was a state court case about education funding adequacy, not segregation. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state had to provide more funding to New York City schools to ensure a sound basic education. This case focused on resource disparities, not racial discrimination, and did not involve the Equal Protection Clause.
D) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke INCORRECT Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) was a case about affirmative action in higher education, not school segregation. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, argued that the university's racial quota system violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional but allowed race to be considered as one factor in admissions. This case addressed reverse discrimination, not the segregation of schools.
