SDO 529 Module 5: Constitutional Law Study Notes on the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection

Development of a "constitutional vocabulary"
- Focused on: separation of powers, commerce clause, federalism, structure of the federal government.
Transition to individual rights: the other half of constitutional law.
Specific focus on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause and its constitutional framework.

Takeaways for Students:
  1. Identify and understand the constitutional principles related to the Fourteenth Amendment, focusing on the equal protection clause (discussed today) and the due process clause (discussed in next class).
  2. Understand the constitutional framework applicable to the equal protection clause.
  3. Identify the state action doctrine and the public function exception, emphasizing that Fourteenth Amendment protections apply to government actions.
  4. Understand and analyze the three tiers of scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny, and know when each is applicable.

Begin with the Fourteenth Amendment and its textual foundation.
Discuss the state action doctrine and the public function exception.
Explore the tiered scrutiny framework, illustrating through major Supreme Court cases:
  - USDA vs. Moreno
  - Loving vs. Virginia
  - Village of Arlington Heights
  - United States vs. Virginia (VMI Case)
Conclude with a summary of how courts approach these important constitutional questions.

Ratified after the Civil War, part of the Reconstruction amendments (thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth amendments).
  - Thirteenth Amendment: Abolished slavery.
  - Fourteenth Amendment: Guaranteed citizenship, equal protection, and due process.
  - Fifteenth Amendment: Prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Focus on Section 1, comprising three critical clauses:
  - Privileges and Immunities Clause
  - Due Process Clause
  - Equal Protection Clause
Text of the Equal Protection Clause: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Initially aimed at prohibiting state-sanctioned discrimination against formerly enslaved people.

Expanded to include issues of gender, alienage, residency status, disability, etc.
Key question: when does government action constituting classification violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause?

Three-tiered Approach:
  1. State Action: Evaluate if there is a government actor involved; the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to governmental actions, restricting private conduct.
  2. Classification: Identify the basis on which the government is classifying individuals, e.g., race, gender, age, etc.
  3. Level of Scrutiny: Determine what level of scrutiny applies and whether the law survives this scrutiny.

Rational Basis: Default presumption that gives significant deference to government actions.
Intermediate Scrutiny: Used for classifications based on gender; requires substantial relation to an important government interest.
Strict Scrutiny: Applies to suspect classifications (race, national origin) and laws affecting fundamental rights; requires a compelling government interest and narrow tailoring.

Threshold question for equal protection analyses.
Only applicable to government actions, not private discrimination.
Key Case: Civil Rights Cases (1883): Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, asserting that Congress could not bar private discrimination.

Shelley vs. Kramer (1948): Judicial enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant counts as state action, showing the nuance within the state action doctrine.

Allows for constitutional scrutiny of private entities performing traditionally government functions.
Example: Marsh vs. Alabama (1946): Court ruled that a privately owned company town was exercising public functions and could not suppress free speech.

Established that closer scrutiny might be appropriate when legislation discriminates against discrete and insular minorities.
Introduced the tiers of scrutiny framework into constitutional law.

Courts offer almost complete deference to government actions unless there is animus (bare hostility) towards a group.
Case Study: USDA vs. Moreno (1973): The Supreme Court struck down a food stamp regulation motivated by animus against hippie communes, emphasizing that legislation driven by hostility fails even rational basis review.

Facially Discriminatory Laws: Automatically trigger strict scrutiny (e.g., Loving vs. Virginia - struck down anti-miscegenation laws).
Facially Neutral Laws: Require proof of discriminatory purpose; mere disparate impact is inadequate (e.g., Washington vs. Davis).

Ended state-sanctioned bans on interracial marriage.
Utilized strict scrutiny to analyze Virginia's racial integrity statute, demonstrating that discrimination on the basis of race is inherently suspect and requires compelling justification.

Evaluated whether the refusal to rezone for a low-income housing project violated equal protection.
Confirmed that proof of racial discrimination intent was necessary for an equal protection claim, introducing a multifactor analysis:
  1. Statistical evidence of disparate impact.
  2. Historical background of the body making the decision.
  3. Sequence of events in decision-making.
  4. Government officials' statements and administrative history.
  5. Comparisons with substantive norms.

Case Study: Virginia Military Institute (VMI) (1996)
VMI’s male-only admission policy was struck down, requiring an exceedingly persuasive justification for gender-based classifications.
The ruling emphasized that stereotypical justifications and post hoc rationalizations are impermissible.

Ongoing discussions regarding the application of scrutiny levels to immigration and transgender rights.
The future of equal protection doctrine remains contested and fluid.

Rational Basis: Highly deferential; laws generally upheld unless driven by animus.
Intermediate Scrutiny: Demands substantial relation to an important interest, with a higher burden of proof on the state.
Strict Scrutiny: Highest level of scrutiny requiring compelling governmental interests and narrow tailoring, leading to a presumption of unconstitutionality for racial classifications.
Recognition of the historical evolution and ongoing challenges with the equal protection clause and individual rights under the Constitution.

Discussion will center on substantive due process and rights not enumerated in the Constitution.
Examination of the implications of governmental action on privacy and individual rights, including reproductive rights.