PLEASE ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS IN ONE DOCUMENT.

A. In what ways did the Supreme Court’s approach to immigration policy change between the 1880s and the 1960s and in what ways did it stay consistent? In answering this question please discuss at least three readings, including one from before this unit. (500-600 words)

B. How did the Supreme Court adjust its interpretation of the Constitution in order to help end racial segregation? 

Did it use one basic approach, or several different strategies? In answering this question please discuss at least 

three readings. (500-600 words) 

C. What are the most significant changes to how the Supreme Court talked/thought about race and citizenship over the course of this unit? Note: the unit goes from Ozawa v. US (1923) to Loving v. Virginia (1967). Please discuss at 

least three readings to help illustrate your argument. (500-600 words)

I will insert the readings downbelow in the files 

Do not provide outside sources!

A few tips: 

1. When you draft your responses, make sure you answer the question directly and succinctly in the first few 

sentences. Then move on to presenting evidence to support your argument. 

2. Don’t spend too many words explaining the background and facts of the cases. You don’t need to explain the 

case beyond what is necessary for your argument. You need to conserve your words to have enough to make a 

really strong argument. 

3. When you quote the readings or cite a specific idea from them, you must include the page number in 

parentheses at the end of the sentence. 

4. These questions are designed so that you don’t need to do outside research and can focus on analyzing the readings that we have discussed together in class. If, for some reason you end up doing outside research, you must 

cite your source fully using a footnote. 

5. Please proofread your responses carefully. I do take clarity and organization, as well as spelling, grammar, 

punctuation, etc. into account.  

I will assign points based on the following rubric. 

Each question is worth 33 points (x 3 = 99 + one point for writing your name).

33: The response is well-written, and has a creative and ambitious argument that is made clearly up front and 

carried through to the end. Makes good use of the course concepts and readings to back that argument up. Shows 

clear understanding of concepts and readings. 

31: The response is well-written, and has a clear (but not necessarily ambitious) argument which is sustained 

throughout the paper. Makes good use of the course concepts and readings to back that argument up, but may 

have some organizational problems. 

29: The response is generally well-written, and has a clear argument by the end, but not necessarily clear at the beginning. Shows a solid understanding of the majority of key concepts and readings, but does not always make good use of the cases and readings to support the argument. 

27: The response demonstrates a pretty good understanding of the cases and concepts, but does not use course material to build a clear argument. It may have an argument at the beginning and/or the end, but not carry that 

argument through the analysis, OR the argument itself may reveal some confusion about a key concept. 

25: Either states an argument but does not build support for the argument using cases and readings from the 

course, OR does not state a clear argument but seems to reach one by the end. In both cases, discussion may 

reveal some confusion about a key concept. 

23: The response does not state a clear argument, and the analysis of the cases and readings either demonstrates confusion about some concepts, or has problems with presentation, organization, and writing.

21: The paper lacks a clear argument and has some problems with presentation, organization, and writing. It also 

suggests some misunderstandings of key concepts or readings. 

19: The paper has major problems with presentation, organization, and writing, and demonstrates major

misunderstandings of key concepts or readings.