U.S. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection, Scrutiny, and Landmark Cases

Rational Basis

In U.S. constitutional law, the lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review.

Strict Scrutiny

Supreme Court rule that classification by race and ethnic background is inherently suspect and must be justified by a "compelling public interest."

Intermediate Scrutiny

the standard used by the courts to decide cases of discrimination based on gender and sex; burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate an important governmental interest is at stake in treating men differently from women

Reed V Reed

(1971) Landmark case in which the Supreme Court for the first time upheld a claim of gender discrimination. Invalidated Idaho state law preferring men to women in court selection of an estate's administrator

What issue did the Supreme Court address regarding women service members?

Women service members had to jump through hoops to get their male dependents military benefits, which was reversed due to the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

What was the outcome of the case Craig v. Boren (1976)?

The Supreme Court reversed Oklahoma's law prohibiting the sale of 3.2% beer to males under 21 and females under 18, citing a violation of the 14th Amendment.

What standard of scrutiny is applied in cases of gender discrimination?

Intermediate scrutiny is applied, requiring that the law must serve an important governmental objective and must be substantially related to that objective.

What did the case Orr v. Orr (1979) address?

The case challenged Alabama's alimony law, which required men to pay alimony to their wives after divorce, raising issues of gender discrimination.

Frontiero V Richardson

14th amendment negates a federal law that allowed a woman in the armed forces to claim her husband as a dependant only if he depended on her for 50% + of his support, while a serviceman could claim dependent status for his wife regardless of actual dependency

bolling v sharpe

Issue: Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the 5th Amendment? (Discrimination)

Date: 1954 (Warren Court, 9-0 Decision for Bolling)

Case Summary: On account of their race, black children in Washington D.C. were denied admission to the same public schools which white children attended.

Rule of Law/Precedent Set: Racial segregation violates 5th Amendment Due Process. The District of Columbia is governed by federal law rather than state law. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which was used in Brown v. Board of Education, is not applicable. Reverse Incorporation, federal government has to respect equal protection clause and separate but equal is still inherently unequal as ruled in Brown.

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney

To prove that a state actor violates the Equal Protection Clause by enacting legislation with a discriminatory purpose, a plaintiff must show that the decisionmaker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

A state statutory-rape law that discriminates against males does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it deters males from engaging in sexual behavior that might lead to illegitimate pregnancies.

Commonwealth v. Bernardo B

male charged stat. rape on three younger girls, he was 14 girls were 12. SC decided that he was entitled to discovery to investigate selective enforcement claim

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Facts: Male challenged women's only police of nursing school

Rule: A women's only admission's policy is constitutional when it is supported by a significant government interests and is substantially related to the governmental objective.

Issue: Did state statute violate EP of 14th Amendment

Holding: Yes it violated this. It would have need to have shown it served important governmental objectives and that discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives

People V Santorelli

women not able to show breasts in public.

argued that if men were allowed to woment could too.

statute reverse and this was found to violate equal protection clause

People v. Liberta

- marital rape is a crime

- under equal protection marital exemption to rape is unconstitutional

State v. Lederer

Failure to resist is not consent

No means no

American Booksellers Inc vs Hudnut 1986

The American Booksellers Association and other individual individuals who read and distribute pornographic books and films (Plaintiffs) challenge an Indianapolis ordinance that holds the maker or seller of pornography liable to anyone injured by someone who has seen or read pornography. First amendment violation claim; State and local government is allowed to restrict "obscene" speech as it sees fit. But it is restricted by the First Amendment from installing any regulation to restrict this "obscene" speech that also necessarily regulates speech that is protected under the First Amendment as declared as being non obscene speech under Miller.

Meritor Saving Bank v Vinson 1986

Vinson was a teller at bank got promoted did well etc, but her boss coerced her into sexual relationship; established that hostile work environment and quid pro quo are forms of sexual harrassment and violate Title VII and workplaces are responsible for sexual harassment whether aware or not

Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards 1991

Woman suffered a unwelcome sexual enviorment at mostly male workplace; This case established the principle that an employer is liable for sexual harassment even if the victim suffers no psychological harm

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974)

Pay discrimination cases under the Equal Pay Act require the employee to prove that there is unequal pay based on sex for substantially equal work.

Martinez vs country of monroe 2008

Gay marriage conducted outside of country is valid under NY Law and not prohibited

Grutter v Bollinger 2003

affirmative action case (lost) ; race could be used as a factor in admissions as long as there was no point system and race was not a major factor; upheld Bakke case

Coverture

A common-law doctrine under which the legal personality of the husband covered the wife and he made all legally binding decisions

Protectionism

practice within law that uses biological or other reasons to "protect" women while simultaneously discriminating against them

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause the Court held that Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional.

Mercer V Duke 1999

Sue mercer became a kicker for Duke's all male football team; was then excluded from play. If team allows women to play they must treat them equally

Cohen v. Brown University (1996)

a ruling in federal court that Brown University violated Title IX when it demoted its women's gymnastics and volleyball teams from university-funded to donor-funded varsity status. This precedent-setting ruling, which set the standard for determining a school's compliance with Title IX in the area of athletics, was affirmed on appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court declined Brown's petition to hear the case, and the women's teams were restored to university-funded status.

Fuhr V School district of Hazel park

Title IX

A United States law enacted on June 23, 1972 that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Title VII

A portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, apprenticeships, training, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin for employers with 15 or more workers.

Gebser V Lago Vista Independent School District

Student and a teacher had a secret relationship. The teacher initiated it. The question was if a federally funded educational program or activity could be required, under title IX, to pay sexual harassment damages to a student who was in a secret relationship with a member of its staff. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school, saying that Lago Vista never showed indifference to Gebser's relationship since it never knew, either formally or informally, of its existence. Accordingly, the school was not liable for sexual harassment damages

married women's property acts

Starting in 1839, these state laws effectively ended coverture, though they were usually motivated by concerns for saving families if a husband went bankrupt rather than a belief in women's equality, plus to keep slaves under ownership.

Bradwell v. Illinois 1873

(1873)-Myra Bradwell applied for the Illinois state bar, but was denied admittance on the basis of her gender. The case ruled 8-1 that the right to practice a profession was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Minor v. Happersett (1875) was a Supreme Court case where Virginia Minor challenged Missouri's refusal to register her as a voter, arguing the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed women the right to vote. The Court unanimously ruled that while women are citizens, the Constitution does not grant the right to vote to all citizens, leaving suffrage qualifications to the states. This landmark decision left the women's suffrage movement to seek a constitutional amendment, which eventually became the Nineteenth Amendment.

Brandeis Brief

Filed by attorney Louis D. Brandeis in the Supreme Court case of Muller vs. Oregon, this brief presented only two pages of legal precedents, but contained 115 pages of sociological evidence on the negative effects of long workdays on women's health and thus on women as mothers. The brief expanded the definition of legal evidence.

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

First time Court allows for a law limiting the hours of work, and therefore the "liberty of contract." Allowed social science as evidence, but ruled that women deserved protection because of their status as potential mothers. (Progressive victory, or a step back for women?) additionally used the brandeis brief

Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)

Supreme Court upheld a Michigan law prohibiting any woman from working in a tavern, unless wife/daughter of owner. Justified state legislatures' prohibitions against women workers. Reinforced public sentiment about women workers.

compensatory rationale

reasoning that women deserve special treatment and may be discriminated against in favor of women based on special burdens associated with reproduction

Hoyt v. Florida (1961)

All male jury was used in a murder trial of female, Hoyt. Court ruled that since the exclusion of women from jury duty was necessary as they are "the center of the home" the all male jury was not offensive to 14th amendment

J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)

Facts: J.E.B was involved in a paternity trial where his jury was comprised of all women. The Defense used all peremptory challenges on men, striking them from jury service solely based on gender. Issue: Does striking jurors based on gender violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment? Holding: Yes, striking jurors solely based on discriminatory criteria, like gender, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Rule of Law: All people being tried in a court of law have a right to a jury of their own peers. If it is found that peremptory challenges are used according to a discriminating stereotype, like removing all men from the jury as they may be assumed to have more sympathy for a male defendant, this would be considered violating the 14th amendment. Disposition: Reversed and RemandedReasoning: 1. Defendant has the right to have a jury picked with non discriminatory criteria. 2. The 14th amendment prohibits discrimination of jury selection based on assumption that gender may influence their opinion on a particular case.

Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977)

Facts: Rawlinson was a women who applied for a position as a correctional officer but was rejected due to weight and height standards put in place by an Alabama statute. Rawlinson filed a complaint with the EEOC and was given a right to sue under the fact that she believed this statute was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Issue: Does the Alabama statute requiring height and weight requirements for correctional officers violate Title VII of the Civil RIghts act?Holding: Yes, this Alabama statute is in direct violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rule of Law: States or employers, in this case the state of Alabama, cannot make laws or rules that disportionately exclude certain members from hiring based on gender due to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, if a employer/state cannot prove why a discriminatory rule is part of a, "bona fide occupational qualification" then it is also in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Reasoning: 1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly states that these types of discriminatory hiring practices are prohibited.

2. The appellants of this case were wholly unable to prove why this hiring requirement under the Alabama statute would be exempted under the "bona fide occupational qualification" exemption in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)

Facts: Johnson Controls employees are subject to a certain amount of lead when working in their manufacturing department. 8 Johnson Control workers fell pregnant and were exposed to levels above OSHA's standards on safe levels of lead for those planning to conceive. Due to this, Johnson controls made a rule barring any woman with the ability to conceive from working in positions with lead exposure. The petitioners were a group of people affected by this policy and they filed a class-action lawsuit that alleged this rule was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Issue: Does the Johnson Controls policy that no woman with the ability to conceive can work in contact with lead, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?Holding: Yes, this policy by Johnson Controls violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically the Pregnancy Discrimination Act amendment. Rule of Law: Employers cannot exclude employees from certain jobs based on sexual characteristics or reproductive ability due to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Disposition: Reversed and RemandedReasoning: 1. Johnson Controls policy forbidding women who can conceive from working in lead exposed positions is in direct violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2. Johnson controls was unable to prove bona fide occupational qualification for disallowing women to work where they exposed to lead.