Constitutional Law II: Equal Protection, Race, Gender, and Other Classifications

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering constitutional law doctrines, equal protection tiers of review, landmark Supreme Court cases, race and gender jurisprudence, and special classifications.

Equal Protection Clause

The provision of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing that 'no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

Natural Rights (Justice Shaw)

Inalienable, supra-positivist norms that exist above constitutional text and inhere in persons by virtue of their humanity, rendering slavery fundamentally incompatible with law.

Color-Blind Constitution

The constitutional principle formulated in the first Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson stating that 'Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.'

Footnote 11 (Brown v. Board of Education)

The footnote in Brown citing contemporary psychological and social-science studies (including the Clark doll studies) to demonstrate that state-enforced segregation generates an enduring feeling of inferiority in Black children.

De Jure vs. De Facto Segregation

The doctrinal distinction separating state-caused, legally remediable racial separation (de jure) from private, voluntary racial separation arising from residential migration and white flight (de facto), which cannot justify inter-district judicial remedies.

Rational Basis Review

The default, highly deferential standard of judicial review under which a law is presumed constitutional and will be upheld if it is rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government interest.

Strict Scrutiny

The most demanding tier of judicial review, triggered by suspect classifications (such as race or national origin) or infringements of fundamental rights, under which a law is presumed invalid unless the government proves it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

Intermediate Scrutiny

The heightened standard of judicial review applied to quasi-suspect classifications (such as sex), requiring the government to demonstrate that the classification serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to achieving that objective.

Rational Basis with Bite

A standard of review where the Court nominally applies rational basis review but invalidates a law burdening an unpopular or vulnerable group because the legislation was motivated by bare animus rather than a legitimate regulatory purpose.

Discriminatory Application

An equal protection violation occurring when a facially neutral statute is administered by state officials 'with an evil eye and an unequal hand' to deliberately burden a specific group.

Discriminatory Purpose Requirement

The rule established in Washington v. Davis requiring a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral law under the Equal Protection Clause to prove discriminatory purpose or intent; disparate impact alone is insufficient.

Arlington Heights Factors

The evidentiary framework used to prove discriminatory intent absent dramatic impact

1. Whether the impact falls more heavily on one race.

2. A clear pattern that can’t be explained on other grounds.

3. The historical background.

4. The specific sequence of events.

5. Departures from normal procedures, procedural or substantive.

6. Legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements.

Political-Process Doctrine

The constitutional principle holding that a political majority may not restructure the political or decisionmaking apparatus to place unique structural or procedural obstacles on minority groups seeking protective legislation.

Predominant Factor Standard

The standard in racial redistricting cases establishing that strict scrutiny applies when race was the predominant factor in drawing district lines, subordinating traditional race-neutral districting principles like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political boundaries.

Real Differences vs. Stereotypes Framework

The governing equal-protection doctrine for sex classifications: statutory lines reflecting genuine, verifiable biological or physiological differences are upheld, whereas laws grounded in over-broad generalizations, paternalism, or archaic gender roles are struck down.

Wealth Classification Doctrine

The rule establishing that poverty or indigent status is not a suspect classification, but conditioning the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights (such as voting or an initial criminal appeal as of right) on wealth violates equal protection.

Spectrum Problem (Disability Classifications)

The rationale articulated in Cleburne for refusing to treat intellectual disability as a quasi-suspect class: because cognitive capacity exists along an infinite continuum, courts lack manageable judicial standards to determine which degrees of disability merit heightened scrutiny.

A challenger asserted that the New Jersey constitutional declaration that 'all men are free and equal' abolished slavery in the state.

State v. Post (N.J. 1845)

What was the rule/holding of State v. Post (N.J. 1845)?

The declaration did not abolish slavery; constitutional provisions must be interpreted in light of the mores and conditions of the society that enacted them, and general declarations of freedom do not strip property rights absent explicit textual language.

An enslaved individual taken into a free state and territory where slavery was barred by the Missouri Compromise of $1820$ sued for his freedom in federal court after returning to a slave state.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

What was the rule/holding of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)?

People of African descent, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens under the Constitution and could not sue in federal court; furthermore, Congress lacked power to prohibit slavery in federal territories, invalidating the Missouri Compromise.

Black citizens challenged private businesses and innkeepers who refused them accommodations and access under the federal Civil Rights Act of $1875$.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

What was the rule/holding of the Civil Rights Cases (1883)?

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only governmental state action, not purely private discrimination; Section 5 does not empower Congress to enact general civil-rights legislation prohibiting individual acts of discrimination.

A passenger who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black was arrested for refusing to vacate a railway passenger car reserved for white passengers under a Louisiana segregation statute.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

What was the rule/holding of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)?

State-mandated racial segregation is constitutional under the 'separate-but-equal' doctrine because the Fourteenth Amendment protects political and legal equality, not social equality.

A Black applicant was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School on the basis of race, prompting the state to hastily set up a separate, parallel Black law school to avoid integration.

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

What was the rule/holding of Sweatt v. Painter (1950)?

A separate, parallel state law school for Black students violates equal protection because equality encompasses non-quantifiable intangible factors, such as prestige, faculty reputation, and alumni networks.

A Black doctoral student was admitted to a state university graduate program under court order but was forced to sit in designated separate seats in classrooms, the library, and the cafeteria.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)

What was the rule/holding of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)?

State-imposed internal segregation of an admitted graduate student violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts the student's ability to engage in academic discourse and impairs educational opportunities.

Black schoolchildren across multiple states challenged state statutes and constitutional provisions requiring or permitting racially segregated public primary and secondary schools.

Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) (1954)

What was the rule/holding of Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) (1954)?

Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Black students challenged racial segregation in public schools operated by the federal government in Washington, D.C., where the Fourteenth Amendment does not directly apply.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

What was the rule/holding of Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)?

Public-school segregation enforced by the federal government violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which incorporates an equal-protection component.

Following the invalidation of segregated public schooling, the Court held reargument to determine the implementation process and decree for dismantling dual school systems.

Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II) (1955)

What was the rule/holding of Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II) (1955)?

Desegregation does not have to occur immediately; federal district courts and local school authorities must transition to a nondiscriminatory school system with a 'prompt and reasonable start' and 'with all deliberate speed.'

An Arkansas school board sought a postponement of its desegregation program in response to active resistance, threats, and public turmoil incited by state executive and legislative officials.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

What was the rule/holding of Cooper v. Aaron (1958)?

Desegregation orders cannot be nullified or suspended due to executive resistance or threats of violence and chaos; Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution are supreme law binding upon all state officials.

A federal district court ordered an inter-district desegregation plan linking Detroit public schools with $53$ surrounding suburban school districts after finding Detroit's inner-city schools intentionally segregated.

Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I) (1974)

What was the rule/holding of Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I) (1974)?

An inter-district desegregation remedy is impermissible unless discriminatory acts by the state or the suburban districts caused the cross-district segregation; racial imbalance caused by private residential movement (de facto) cannot trigger inter-district busing.

After inter-district busing was struck down, the district court ordered the Detroit school board and the State of Michigan to fund comprehensive remedial and compensatory educational programs to eliminate the effects of segregation.

Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II) (1977)

What was the rule/holding of Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II) (1977)?

Federal courts possess equitable authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to order state and local governmental bodies to fund remedial and compensatory educational programs to correct past de jure discrimination.

A municipal transit authority maintained a blanket employment exclusion barring all individuals receiving methadone maintenance treatment, including those seeking non-safety-sensitive positions.

New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)

What was the rule/holding of New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)?

Under rational basis review, an employment classification may be over- or under-inclusive; avoiding the administrative expense of individualized inquiries regarding methadone patients is rationally related to transit safety and efficiency.

An amendment to the Food Stamp Act excluded from participation any household containing unrelated individuals, which congressional history showed was intended to exclude communal 'hippie' households.

USDA v. Moreno (1973)

What was the rule/holding of USDA v. Moreno (1973)?

A bare legislative desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest under rational basis review (rational basis with bite).

A municipality denied a special-use zoning permit for the operation of a group home for individuals with intellectual disabilities, while freely permitting other group facilities such as boarding houses, nursing homes, and fraternities.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

What was the rule/holding of City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)?

Intellectual disability is not a suspect or quasi-suspect class, but denying a zoning permit based on neighbors' unsubstantiated fears, negative attitudes, or irrational prejudice violates equal protection under rational basis review with bite.

A state constitutional amendment adopted by statewide referendum repealed municipal protections against sexual-orientation discrimination and barred all governmental entities from enacting future protections.

Romer v. Evans (1996)

What was the rule/holding of Romer v. Evans (1996)?

A state constitutional amendment that withdraws existing protections and bars an unpopular group from seeking statutory safeguards is driven by impermissible animus and fails rational basis review.

During World War II, a Japanese-American citizen was criminally convicted for violating a military exclusion order mandating the evacuation and internment of over $110{,}000$ persons of Japanese descent.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

What was the rule/holding of Korematsu v. United States (1944)?

In the first explicit application of strict scrutiny to a racial classification, the Court upheld the military internment orders based on deferred claims of pressing public necessity in wartime.

An interracial married couple was criminally prosecuted under a state anti-miscegenation statute that punished white and Black partners equally for marrying each other.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

What was the rule/holding of Loving v. Virginia (1967)?

Statutes restricting the right to marry based on racial classifications violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses; equal application of a racial criminal penalty to both races does not insulate a law from strict scrutiny.

A municipal safety ordinance required board consent to operate laundries in wooden buildings; officials granted permits to nearly all white applicants while denying over $200$ Chinese laundry operators.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

What was the rule/holding of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)?

A statute fair and neutral on its face violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is administered by public authorities 'with an evil eye and an unequal hand' to intentionally discriminate against a particular race or nationality.

Unsuccessful Black applicants challenged a municipal police department's standardized verbal entrance examination that disproportionately failed Black applicants at a rate four times higher than white applicants.

Washington v. Davis (1976)

What was the rule/holding of Washington v. Davis (1976)?

Disproportionate racial impact alone does not establish an equal protection violation or trigger strict scrutiny; a plaintiff must prove the government acted with discriminatory purpose or intent.

A state legislature redrew a city's municipal boundary from a square into an uncouth $28$-sided shape that excluded virtually all Black voters while leaving white voters within city lines.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)

What was the rule/holding of Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960)?

When the discriminatory racial effect of a facially neutral statute is so stark and unexplainable on non-racial grounds, the disparate impact itself establishes discriminatory purpose.

A female civil service applicant challenged a state law giving military veterans an absolute lifetime hiring preference, which overwhelmingly favored men and produced a severe, foreseeable disparate impact on women.

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979)

What was the rule/holding of Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979)?

Discriminatory purpose requires proving that the decisionmaker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.

A Black death-row inmate presented a statistical study (the Baldus study) showing that Georgia defendants who killed white victims were roughly $4.3$ times more likely to receive the death penalty than those who killed Black victims.

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

What was the rule/holding of McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)?

Systemic statistical evidence of racial disparities across capital sentencing does not prove an equal protection violation absent specific evidence that decisionmakers in the petitioner's own case acted with discriminatory purpose.

A white applicant challenged a state medical school admissions program that reserved a fixed quota of $16$ out of $100$ seats in each entering class exclusively for disadvantaged minority applicants.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

What was the rule/holding of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)?

Strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications; rigid racial set-aside quotas are unconstitutional, but attaining the educational benefits of student body diversity is a compelling interest permitting race to be used as a flexible plus factor.

A city required prime construction contractors awarded municipal contracts to subcontract at least $30\%$ of the total dollar amount to minority business enterprises.

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)

What was the rule/holding of City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)?

Strict scrutiny applies to all state and local race-conscious remedial programs; generalized societal discrimination cannot justify race-based set-asides, and remedies must target specific past discrimination committed by the enacting entity.

A non-minority subcontractor submitted the low bid on a federal highway project but lost the subcontract to a minority-owned firm due to a federal program offering financial bonuses for hiring minority-certified subcontractors.

Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995)

What was the rule/holding of Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995)?

All racial classifications imposed by any governmental actor—federal, state, or local—must be reviewed under strict scrutiny; equal protection standards under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are identical.

A rejected white applicant challenged a public law school's admissions policy that considered race as one flexible plus factor among many in a holistic review to attain student-body diversity.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

What was the rule/holding of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)?

Obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body is a compelling interest, and an individualized, holistic review considering race as a plus factor to achieve a 'critical mass' without quotas is narrowly tailored.

Undergraduate applicants challenged a university admissions policy that automatically awarded $20$ points on a $150$-point selection index to every applicant from an underrepresented racial minority group.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

What was the rule/holding of Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)?

An undergraduate admissions policy automatically awarding points based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause because its rigid, mechanical approach lacks the individualized consideration required by strict scrutiny.

Challengers alleged that race-conscious undergraduate admissions programs at private and public universities discriminated against Asian American and white applicants in violation of Title VI and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / UNC (2023)

What was the rule/holding of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / UNC (2023)?

Race-conscious university admissions programs violate equal protection because broad diversity rationales cannot withstand strict scrutiny, use race as a negative and stereotype, and lack a logical endpoint.

Opponents challenged Michigan Proposal 2, an amendment to the state constitution enacted by referendum that prohibited race- and sex-based preferences in public university admissions, public employment, and public contracting.

Schuette v. BAMN (2014)

What was the rule/holding of Schuette v. BAMN (2014)?

A state constitutional amendment enacted through direct democracy barring race- and sex-based preferential treatment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the political-process doctrine.

A male plaintiff between $18$ and $20$ years old challenged an Oklahoma statute that prohibited the sale of $3.2\%$ beer to males under age $21$ while allowing females to purchase it at age $18$.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

What was the rule/holding of Craig v. Boren (1976)?

Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the classification serves an important governmental objective and is substantially related to the achievement of that objective.

The United States challenged the male-only admissions policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), a prestigious state-supported military college that utilized an adversative educational model, after which the state created a separate female leadership institute (VWIL).

United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996)

What was the rule/holding of United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996)?

Categorical exclusion of women from a public military institute violates equal protection; states must show an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for sex classifications, and parallel alternatives lacking comparable prestige, facilities, and alumni networks are unconstitutional.

A $17$-year-old male was prosecuted under a state statutory rape law that made sexual intercourse with a female under age $18$ a crime punishable only against the male partner.

Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court (1981)

What was the rule/holding of Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court (1981)?

A statutory rape statute penalizing only males survives intermediate scrutiny because it is tailored to the 'real difference' that the physical and psychological burdens of pregnancy fall exclusively upon females, equalizing deterrence.

A child born out of wedlock overseas to a U.S. citizen father challenged an immigration statute requiring citizen fathers, but not citizen mothers, to formally establish paternity before age $18$ to confer citizenship.

Nguyen v. INS (2001)

What was the rule/holding of Nguyen v. INS (2001)?

Imposing affirmative paternity requirements on citizen fathers but not citizen mothers survives intermediate scrutiny because it is grounded in the real difference that a mother's presence at birth automatically establishes identity and an opportunity for a bond.

A male retiree challenged a Social Security statutory formula that allowed retired female workers to exclude more lower-earning years than similarly situated male retirees when calculating average monthly wages and retirement benefits.

Califano v. Webster (1977)

What was the rule/holding of Califano v. Webster (1977)?

Benign gender classifications designed explicitly to compensate women for past economic discrimination in the workforce are constitutional under intermediate scrutiny.

Minor patients and parents challenged a state statute prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria or assist transitioning, while permitting the same drugs for other medical conditions.

United States v. Skrmetti (2024)

What was the rule/holding of United States v. Skrmetti (2024)?

Statutes restricting gender-affirming medical treatments for minors are subject to rational basis review because they regulate medical procedures and age rather than establishing a suspect sex classification.

A surviving spouse in a state-recognized Canadian same-sex marriage was forced to pay federal estate taxes after Section 3 of DOMA defined marriage for all federal purposes exclusively as the union between one man and one woman.

United States v. Windsor (2013)

What was the rule/holding of United States v. Windsor (2013)?

Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and due process under rational basis review with bite because its primary purpose and practical effect are to demean, disadvantage, and stigmatize state-recognized same-sex marriages.

Same-sex couples challenged state constitutional amendments and statutory provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage and refusing to recognize valid same-sex marriages performed out of state.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

What was the rule/holding of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)?

Under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, and states must license and recognize same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages.

Lawful permanent resident non-citizens challenged a state civil service law that broadly barred non-citizens from holding any position in the competitive civil service.

Sugarman v. Dougall (1973)

What was the rule/holding of Sugarman v. Dougall (1973)?

State classifications discriminating against lawful resident aliens are subject to strict scrutiny as a discrete and insular minority, invalidating broad exclusions from civil service jobs, though states may bar non-citizens from core self-governing and policymaking positions.

School-age children challenged a state statute that withheld state funds from local school districts for the education of undocumented children and authorized districts to deny them enrollment.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

What was the rule/holding of Plyler v. Doe (1982)?

Denying undocumented immigrant children access to free public education violates the Equal Protection Clause under rational basis review with bite, as penalizing blameless children for parental conduct fails to further any substantial state interest.