Read the following scenario. jacob smith is an african-american man in his fifties. he heads to a local restaurant for dinner and is told by the hostess that he is going to have to sit on “that side” of the establishment, as she gestures to a part of the restaurant where only other african-americans are sitting. mr. smith feels offended and leaves the restaurant. based on passage of the civil rights act, what is mr. smith’s best recourse? filing a claim with the u. s. attorney general to investigate the restaurant. contacting the justice department about a potential discrimination lawsuit. asking the restaurant’s manager to stop segregating customers. demanding the census bureau send him data about the restaurant’s typical customer base.

The correct answer is B) contact the Justice Department about a potential discrimination lawsuit.

Jacob Smith’s best resource is to contact the Justice Department about a potential discrimination lawsuit.

According to the Civil Rights in the United States, no one can be discriminated by race, sex, religion, or color. So, in the case of Jacob Smith, if he considers the potential of a discrimination lawsuit, he can contact the Justice Department and file a lawsuit under federal law alleging discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, or disability, and file a charge with the EEOC. He is going to receive a Notice of Right to Sue and he has 90 days to file a lawsuit in Court.  

citizens united v. federal election commission, case in which the u.s. supreme court on january 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. in so doing the court invalidated section 203 of the federal bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra)—also known as the mccain-feingold act for its sponsors, sen. john mccain and sen. russ feingold—as well as section 441(b) of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca), which the bcra had amended. the court also overturned in whole or in part two previous supreme court rulings: austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) and mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003).

immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. among the critics was pres. barack obama, who remarked in his state of the union address in the house of representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” his criticism provoked one of the supreme court justices in attendance, samuel a. alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”

explanation: