The case you describe is: SWEATT v. PAINTER
Details:
The case of <em>Sweatt v. Painter (</em>1950), challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine regarding racial segregated schooling which had been asserted by an earlier case, <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> (1896).
Heman Marion Sweatt was a black man who was not allowed admission into the School of Law of the University of Texas. Theophilus Painter was the president of the University of Texas at the time. So that's where the names in the lawsuit came from.
In the case, which made its way to the US Supreme Court, the ultimate decision was that forcing Mr. Sweatt to attend law school elsewhere or in a segregated program at the University of Texas failed to meet the "separate but equal" standard, because other options such as those would have lesser facilities, and he would be excluded from interaction with future lawyers who were attending the state university's main law school, available only to white students. The school experience would need to be truly equal in order for the "separate but equal" policy to be valid.
In 1954, another Supreme Court decision went even further. <em>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka </em>extended civil liberties to all Americans in regard to access to all levels of education. The <em>Plessy v. Ferguson </em>case had said that separate, segregated public facilities were acceptable as long as the facilities offered were equal in quality. In <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>, segregation was shown to create inequality, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled segregation to be unconstitutional. After the Brown v. Board of Education decision, there was a struggle to get states to implement the new policy of desegregated schools, but eventually they were compelled to do so.
The government did a recall on him
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Unfortunately, you forgot to include the options for this question,
However, trying to help you, we can answer based on our knowledge of this topic.
The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that people "that are under arrest must be read their rights by law enforcement."
We are talking about the Supreme Court case in which the Warren Court dealt with the rights of the accused: Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda v. Arizona was a case decided by the Warren court on June 13, 1966. Ernesto Miranda had a written confession for kidnap and r*pe, but the issue was that police interrogated him without the presence of a lawyer, neither the police officers told him he had the right to call a lawyer.
The Court's decision favored Miranda, overturned his conviction and the case was sent to Arizona for retrial.
They invaded Afghanistan, Bush said hand over al-Qaeda’s leadership or share their fate.
<span>People were divided into hundreds of ethnic and linguistic groups. They had different religions and spoke more than 1000 languages.</span>
