1. 1
Memorandum
Confidential
To: Professor Frank Ochoa
From: Botros Morkos
RE: American Political and Legal Action Negatively Impacting The Latino Community
Date: 5/12/15
Issue Presented
How the American Legal and political system and their laws negatively affected the
Latino community.
Brief Answer
Throughout history the judicial and political systems of the United States have
disenfranchised and exploited many minority groups. Mexican Americans and Latinos
have suffered greatly in their struggle with the American Legal system to gain their
rights. In the cases of Hernandez v Taxes, Mendez v Westminister School District, The
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and People v de la Guerra the suffering and hardship
endured by the Mexican American and Latino community is illustrated and the journey
which led them to become a distinguished class of citizens respected under the law is
explored.
Discussion
The exclusion of Mexican Americans from the jury commission that selected juries, and
their elimination from the petit juries has led to unconstitutional trials and to the
hindering of the advancement of Chicanos and other Latinos in the United States. For that
reason, the case of Hernandez v Taxes proved to be of great significance to the Chicano

2. 2
community. In 1953, a Mexican American farm worker by the name of Pete Hernandez
was charged and convicted by an all white jury for the murder of Joe Espinosa. The legal
counsel of Hernandez tried discredit the jury, claiming that persons of Mexican American
descent have been purposefully excluded from the juries. Additionally, no one of
Mexican American descent have served on a jury in Jackson County in over twenty-five
years. However, the trial court overturned the objection, and Hernandez was found guilty
and sentenced to life in prison. Despite the efforts of Hernandez‘s legal counsel, the
Taxes Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the original ruling of the trial court, holding that
Mexicans are not a distinguished class of their own but instead a portion of and within the
same class as whites. Hence, the court rejected the notion the persons of Mexican
American descent are a special class of their own protected under the equal protection
clause of the fourteenth amendment. (Rodriguez, Professor Marc S.)
Regardless of the obstacles presented by the American legal system, in an inspiring
movement, the Mexican American community stood behind the legal counsel of
Hernandez, as they understood the significance of what they were trying to accomplish,
and offered whatever monetary support they possibly could to raise the adequate funds
necessary to take the case to the supreme court. Their efforts proved successful and the
case was taken to the United States Supreme Court. The question the court tried to
answer was, “is it a denial of the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause to try a
defendant of a particular race or ethnicity before a jury where all persons of his race or
ancestry have because of this race or ethnicity, been excluded by the state?” (Rodriguez,
Professor Marc S.) In a unanimous vote of nine to zero, the courts answer to that question
was “yes.” The court held that persons of Mexican American descent are a class of their

3. 3
own apart from white or black and are therefore protected under the equal protection
clause of the fourteenth amendment. The ruling was of huge significance not only to the
Latino community but also to other racial or minority groups within any given
community. The case was a huge triumph for the Latino community and a perfect
example of how the exclusion of Mexican Americans from jury commissions and petit
juries by the American legal system hindered the advancement of Chicanos and other
Latinos in the United States.
Furthermore, the American laws and the American legal system have hindered the
advancement of Chicanos and Latinos in the United States through segregation in the
educational system. Mendez v Westminister School District of Orange County challenged
the notion that equal protection under the law was provided by equipping segregated
schools with similar technical facilities. In 1947, Gonzalo Mendez and several other
Mexican parents sued the school district on the grounds that segregation present in
Orange County public schools was inconsistent with California’s education code. In his
decision judge McCormick went further to say that segregated schools violated the equal
protection clause under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. “A paramount
requisite in the American system of public education is social equality. It must be open to
all children by unified school association regardless of lineage” (The Latinos and The
Law Pg.43). This was an exceptional remark, for the position of the courts had long been
that the equal protection clause was satisfied through providing equal equipment to all
schools regardless of color.
Although the decision of the court may have been extraordinary and set the stage for
Brown v Board of Education, it was still clear that the social segregation of schools had

4. 4
hindered the ability of Mexican American and Latino kids to learn English by depriving
them of an environment that best habilitates the use of the language. Furthermore,
segregated schools caused a feeling of inferiority and lack of self-esteem for the Mexican
American kids.
Moreover, the American legal system has hindered the advancement of persons of
Mexican descent in the United States by denying them equal property rights under the
law. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 marked the end of the Mexican American
war with America acquiring more then 525,000 square miles of land from Mexico. The
treaty meant America would acquire long desired land lands including California,
Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. The essential elements of the treaty that addressed the
Mexican governments concern over its citizens in conquered territories came in articles
VIII, IX, and X. Article VIII, as proposed, gave the Mexican citizens residing in
conquered territories the ability to become American citizens either by election or by
their continued residence within the United States, which would be considered as tacit
consent sufficient for providing them with the American citizenship. Article IX as
originally stated, made clear that “Mexicans that became United States citizens shall be
incorporated into the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible,
according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights of
citizens of the United States” (The Latinos and The Law Pg.17). Article X held that all
land grants to the Mexicans provided by the Mexican government would be respected as
valid, to the same extent to which they would have been, had the territories remained
under Mexican rule. The American government deleted articles VIII and X and revised
article IX. The omission of article ten was of great significance as it delegitimized

5. 5
Mexican government’s land grants made before the treaty. Thus, this made it much easier
to take the private land of Mexicans that had been granted to them by the Mexican
government before the signing of the treaty. Additionally, the removal of article eight
helped pave the way for the revision of article nine in which the most critical phrase was
altered. The phrase as stated in the original article gave Mexicans living in conquered
territories the right to become American citizens “incorporated into the union of the
United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal
constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States” (The
Latinos and The Law Pg.17). However, the article was altered to reflect the will of
Congress, not to give Mexicans in conquered territories the rights of an American citizen.
Thus, the article stated that Mexicans residing in conquered territories “shall be
incorporated into the union of the United States and be admitted, at the proper time (to be
judged of by the congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of
citizens of the United States according to the principles of the constitution” (The Latinos
and The Law Pg.18). By doing so Congress insured that it would be the only entity able
to give Mexicans living in conquered territories the right to become American citizens. It
is clear that in the Treaty of Guadalupe, Mexicans were exploited and treated as an
inferior class, finding themselves not only hindered by the American legal system in its
denial to them of equal property rights but also unwanted because they were denied
citizenship.
Most importantly, the determination and efforts of Mexican Americans can be
celebrated in the case of the People v de la Guerra, as it shows how the Mexican
American community is able to strive and effect political change in the country. In 1869,

6. 6
de la Guerra was elected as a California state court judge for the first judicial district after
having served as a member of California’s constitutional convention in 1849. On behalf
the people of California, M.M. Kimberly field a suite challenging the legitimacy of de la
Guerra’s claim to judicial office on the grounds that California’s Act of April 20th, 1863,
maintained that “only U.S. citizens are eligible for the office of district judge, and that de
la Guerra could not become a citizen under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo absent
congressional action”(People v. De La Guerra: Mexican, Inhabitant, or Savage?).
Kimberly’s argument depended on the fact that congress had not recognized de la Guerra
individually as a citizen of the United States. However, the court went on to interpret the
options that were provided to Mexicans in the newly acquired territories as mentioned in
article 8 in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The first option, as provided by the treaty,
was to move to a land still under the control of Mexico and to retain all the rights and
duties of the Mexican citizenship. The second option was to remain in the ceded
territories and to maintain the Mexican citizenship. The third option was to become
citizens of the United States. The court made clear that de la Guerra chose the third
option, as was his right. Then, the court made clear that article IX gave congress the
ability to incorporate newly acquired states into the union, not individuals. All the
Mexican citizens residing therein, having chosen the third option provided by article VIII
of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, automatically become citizens of the United States
able to engage in civic duty and obtain public office.
Although the case of the people v de la Guerra illustrated the discrimination
Mexican Americans and Latinos had to endure in the United States, its significance were
immense, as it showed how the determination and effort of the Latino community were

7. 7
able to turn a treaty that was originally used against them, and use it to their advantage as
a way of securing Mexican American rights. It also showed how Mexican Americans and
Latinos could come to effect change in the judicial and political systems through the
courts. Most importantly, the case signified the willingness of the California Supreme
Court to provide new U.S. citizens of color protection under the law from discriminatory
state policies without waiting for congress to act first.
Conclusion
The struggle of the Mexican American and Latino community has proved to be one of
the most aspiring struggles in American history. The gain and freedoms that the Mexican
American and Latino community have accomplished for various minority groups is a
landmark in history. It is through the suffering and determination of those in the cases
above that we enjoy the freedom we prize so uniquely. It is therefore the duty of their
ancestors to live up to the expectations placed upon them by history through the
achievements of their forefathers.

8. 8
Works Cited.
Rodriguez, Professor Marc S. "Http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-
1959/1953/1953_406#sort=vote." Http://www.oyez.org. 10 May 2015. Web. 12 May
2015.
Delgado, Richard, and Juan F. Perea. The Latinos and the Law: Cases and Materials. St.
Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2008. Print.
"Comités De Defensa Del Barrio. : People v. De La Guerra: Mexican, Inhabitant, or
Savage? 14 July 2011. Web. 14 May 2015.