Exploring Law, Justice and “Equal Justice Under the Law”

1. In True Justice, Stephen Bright says, “There's a huge difference between law and justice.” 

Have students create either a two column table and title one column law and the other justice, or draw a venn diagram of overlapping concentric circles with one circle law and the other justice. Ask students to individually list words and phrases that come to mind that describe and define each term. Discuss student’s responses and, as a class, create a working definition of each word that can be enhanced and changed as the lesson unfolds. 

Note: If your students want more context for this activity, read aloud the full passage that contains Stephen Bright’s quote (the text is also available in Handout 3: The Promise of the Law Thread.)

"Well, there's a huge difference between law and justice. Law says that, “If a person misses a deadline by a day, even though it's an innocent mistake, that person is going to be denied any relief in the court." That's not justice. Justice would say, "Let's look and see what happened and do the right thing." Law says, the Supreme Court says, "No, that person's out of luck. We will never look at what happened in that case." Law says that "We allow prosecutors to strike black people in picking juries and try cases to all white juries." Justice would say, "The jury would be representative of a community and would be a diverse jury." The law doesn't say that. You can look at time after time, the law says that, "We're going to have prosecutors who are absolutely immune from any misconduct while they're in office." Justice would say, "We'll look at those things and do whatever's appropriate to deal with some of the really egregious prosecutorial misconduct we've seen and particularly in death penalty cases.

2. Write the phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” and explain that the phrase is engraved on the entrance to the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C.

Read aloud the following statement from Bryan Stevenson in True Justice, regarding the meaning of that phrase to him, letting students know they will learn more about the McCleskey v Kemp case he refers to in the film clips that follow:

"For most of my career I’ve provided legal representation to people on death row. I’ve argued a bunch of cases before the United States Supreme Court and each time I go, I stand there in front of the court, I read what it says about equal justice under law. I have to believe that, to make sense out of what I do. Once I got involved in representing people on death row, it was McCleskey that began to illuminate the ways in which our history of racial inequality was limiting the commitment of the rule of law and disadvantaging people of color. What was surprising is that the United States Supreme Court didn’t question the data. The court said even though we believe you, we’re not going to strike down the death penalty because a certain amount of bias in the administration of the death penalty is in our opinion “inevitable.” And as a young lawyer working on that case, that was a real crisis. It felt like the court was abandoning the commitment to equal justice, it was abandoning the commitment to racial equality." 

Have students discuss in small groups their understanding of “equal justice under law,” and add any new insights to the class’s working definitions of law and justice. 

Teacher Note: Transition from this discussion to watching the three film clips from True Justice on Day One of the lesson, and continue on Day Two with the primary source documents and the interview thread created for this lesson. Each offers insights and information on law and justice from multiple perspectives and experiences. Be sure to return to the class’s working definition of law and justice several times during the lesson to capture reflections and new learning throughout the two days.

Teacher Note: The following film clips are excerpted directly from True Justice and focus on EJIs legal work, including their challenges to the death penalty and several Supreme Court cases Bryan Stevenson and EJI argued in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Distribute Handout One: The Supreme Court and Racial Inequality Note Catcher 

Ask students to review the Note Catcher before watching the clips so they are familiar with the questions. Invite students to write down their notes while watching, and offer a few minutes after each clip to complete their notes. 

Watch Clip 1: "The Doctrine of Inevitability" (runtime: 11:00) in the "Film Clips" section below. 

This clip introduces several seminal cases litigated by Bryan Stevenson and EJI before the Supreme Court. Bryan Stevenson argues that the death penalty is racially discriminatory, and in McCleskey v Kemp, the Supreme Court finds that some amount of racial bias is “inevitable.”

Wach Clip 2: "Lynching and Its Legacy" (runtime 6 min) in the "Film Clips" section below.

Teacher Note: This segment uses a derogatory term for African Americans. 

In this clip, Bryan Stevenson describes the case of Walter McMillian, and how unfair death penalty sentencing in the present is inextricably linked to the legacy of racial terror lynching.

For more information on Walter McMillian see this short biography from Equal Justice Initiative.

Watch Clip 3: "Being Willing to Say ‘I’m Sorry’" (runtime 4:00) in "Film Clips" section below.

Anthony Ray Hinton was wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 30 years due to racial bias, but never received an apology. Bryan Stevenson talks about the power of apology, despite our cultural norms that dictate against admissions of wrongdoing by powerful people and institutions, such as the Supreme Court.

Finish Day One of this lesson by offering students time to complete their Note Catcher from the Film Clips.

Begin Day Two of this lesson by returning to the terms ‘law’ and’ justice’ and asking students what new information or ideas they would like to add to their working definition.

Take a few minutes to discuss any questions that have arisen before transitioning to the remaining activities. 

Distribute Handout Two: The Supreme Court and Enslaved People. It contains excerpts from:

Walter Johnson’s Soul by Soul, featuring first-person accounts from enslaved people
One of the Supreme Court decisions that played a major role in codifying slavery into law, Dred Scott v. Sanford

Briefly discuss the excerpts for clarity and understanding. Then have students write an essay reflecting on the following writing prompt:

Juxtapose the personal accounts of enslaved people and the Supreme Court decision that made their enslavement legal.

Teacher Note: The film-makers conducted numerous interviews to produce True Justice with nine of these interviews free and accessible in the Interview Archive on the Kunhardt Film Foundation website. A selection of these interviews, edited together here to create interview threads, are available for your students’ learning. 

For Lesson Three:

*One interview thread was created for this lesson that teachers and students can choose from, or use together, to deepen their understanding of the lesson topic. 

*Print and distribute Handout 3: The Promise of the Law so students can follow along with the interview transcripts. 

*As students watch the Interview Thread, have them follow along on the transcripts, and underline details that catch their attention, and jot down questions and insights that come to mind. 

Teacher Note: This is the halfway mark of the lessons for True Justice. At this juncture, it may be helpful at the conclusion of Lesson Three to take the emotional pulse of the class by asking each student to engage in several silent writing exercises using these prompts:

*Write down any thoughts or feelings that are surfacing after learning and discussing the topics in True Justice. 

*Write down any questions that came up for them during this lesson that they would like to explore more deeply. If available, have students write these on large Post-It Notes or on an easel paper that can remain hanging in your class.

Have each student share their question(s) aloud in a roundtable like convening, allowing students to respond - not answer the questions - only after the entire class has spoken. 

Invite students to share these reflections with if they are comfortable, or keep them as a personal journal entry. 

Option One 

Close Examination: McCleskey v Kemp

Handout Five: Deep Dive, McCleskey v Kemp  contains an outline of the case, the foundational Baldus study, excerpts from Justice Powell’s majority decision and Justice Brennan’s famous dissent. Using these materials, and the associated links to the primary sources of each document, create a case summary of McCleskey v. Kemp and its relevance to the essential question of this lesson: "How has the U.S. Supreme Court been complicit in creating and sustaining racial inequality?" 

Option Two

The Equal Justice Initiative has extensive resources on their website, EJI.org, to learn more about the Supreme Court’s role in sustaining racial violence, racial inequality, and racial bias. Invite students to survey these resources and engage with an independent research topic of their choosing on the Supreme Court. 

Step One: Type in “Supreme Court” in the EJI Search window 
Step Two: Select at least one article of interest 
Step Three: Complete a close reading of the article, the site, or video and be prepared to share this summary the next day in class.