Memorizing Equal Protection Clause Cases

Flashcards of Key Cases and Legal Concepts

Brown v Board of Education

desegregated public schools and declared racial segregation unconstitutional.

State of Missouri Gaines v Canada

Exclusion of African American students from Missouri law school, where they paid blacks to go to neighboring law school,s which violated the equal protection clause

Sweatt v Painter

Separate Law School for blacks of lower quality resulted in a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as the court determined that the quality of education must be equal; thus establishing the foundation for future desegregation cases.

Alston v Norfolk

Stated Discriminatory fixed-salary schedules for Black teachers at a lower rate than white teachers violate the EPC.

CASA Inc v Donald J Trump

Determined that Trump administration expansion of public charge rule unconstitutional due to disproportionate impact on low income and immigrant communities

Washington v Donald J Trump

Initially ruled that the ban on entry from majority Muslim countries was unconstitutional, later found to be within his jurisdiction

Regents of the University of California v Bakke

Use of racial quotas violates EPC and CRA It is forbidden to reserve seats based on race. Diversity in education is a compelling interest, but also, policies need to be narrowly tailored

Milliken v Bradley

Federal courts cannot impose multi-district desegregation plans unless there is proof that districts caused segregation.

Green v County School Board of New Kent County

Determined that 'freedom of choice' plans must dismantle segregation to comply with Equal Protection.

Cooper v Aaron

Ruled that Arkansas officials are bound by federal court orders mandating desegregated schools.

US v Virginia

Ruled that Virginia's creation of a women-only academy (VWIL) did not provide the same opportunities as VMI and violates the EPC.

Reed v Reed

Ruled that the Idaho law preferring males over females as estate administrators violates the EPC.

Frontiero v Richardson

Ruled that the DOD policy assuming female military spouses' dependency but requiring proof from male spouses violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause.

Craig v Boren

Ruled that Oklahoma's law on beer sales based on gender violates the EPC; lacks substantial relation to traffic safety, fails intermediate scrutiny.

Fisher v University of Texas (Fisher II)

Ruled that UT's use of race as a consideration in admissions serves the compelling interest of educational diversity and achieves critical mass for the remaining seats outside of their top 10% plan.

SFFA v Harvard

Ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy impermissibly discriminates against Asian American applicants, ending race-conscious admissions without narrowly tailored goals.

SFFA v US Naval Academy

Ruled that diversity is a compelling interest for naval academy is a national security concern and doesn't violate EPC since they narrow tailor admissions.

City of Richmond v JA Croson Co

Ruled that Richmond’s ordinance requiring 30% of construction contracts to go to minority businesses violates EPC.

Grutter v Bollinger

Ruled that the University of Michigan Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissions does not violate the EPC or CRA because they narrow tailor use of race and answer compelling interest that there are educational benefits to a diverse student body but students are still individual and holistically reviewed.

Parents Involved v Seattle School District 1

Ruled that assigning students to schools based on race to promote diversity (or achieve racial balance) is unconstitutional.

US v Windsor

Ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies same-sex couples equal protection under the Fifth Amendment and violated equal protection under 5th amendment.

Bostock v Clayton County

Ruled that firing someone because of their sexual identity violates EPC.

Loving v Virginia

Bans on interracial marriage violate EPC

Trans Health Executive Order

Trumps EO aimed for hospitals to deny youth under 19 gender affirming care and threatened to take their funding away if they did not comply, which was passed on as a reminder to UVA health by Virginias Attorney General.