Equal Protection of the Laws

Equal Protection of the Laws

Constitutional Law

  • Equal protection clause: No state shall deny equal protection.

  • Analysis involves different levels of scrutiny:

    • Strict Scrutiny: Suspect classifications (race, fundamental rights). Compelling interest, narrowly tailored.

    • Middle Tier Scrutiny: Gender classifications. Important interest, closely related.

    • Rational Basis Scrutiny: All other classifications. Rationally related to legitimate interest.

  • Challenge: Classifying classifications.

  • Theory of Heightened Scrutiny: Legislation restricting political processes, targeting minorities, or curtailing protections.

Traditional Rational Basis Review

  • Examines distinctions under a less searching standard.

  • Rational Basis Standard: Low-level equal protection review.

    • Varied basis over years: reasonable, rationally related, not wholly irrelevant.

Case: RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY v. NEW YORK

  • NY law: No advertising vehicles except delivery vehicles. Regulation distinguishes between advertising own products and general advertising.

  • Court: Local authorities may conclude those advertising their own business don't present same traffic problems.

  • Classification doesn't discriminate against equal protection; made upon practical considerations.

Justice Jackson, concurring

  • Claims of equal protection are rarely sustained.

  • Gov shouldn’t discriminate except on reasonable differentiation.

  • Regulation needs more justification to avoid arbitrary measures.

Race and Equal Protection
1. Separate and Unequal: PLESSY v. FERGUSON

  • Louisiana law: Separate but equal accommodations on railroads.

  • 14th Amendment: Citizenship, states can't abridge privileges/immunities, deprive life/liberty/property without due process, or deny equal protection.

  • Law enforcing separation doesn't mean one race is superior.

  • Court denies it suggests race inferiority. Social prejudice exists; legislation can't regulate social equalities.

JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting

  • C° doesn't permit public authority to know race regarding civil rights.

  • Gov shouldn't permit hate from one race to another by law.

  • Law shouldn't arouse race hate, create distrust.

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

  • Seeking admission on a nonsegregated basis. Segregation deprives equal protection.

  • Court must consider public education's full development.

  • School attendance is important; denying education impairs chances to succeed.

  • Segregation generates inferiority feelings. Separate but equal has no stand in education.

KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES

  • Persons of Japanese descent forced to relocate. Restrictions curtailing civil rights are suspect.

  • Court upheld restriction, acknowledging war hardship. Special wartime measures can take place; no citizen held because of ancestry but exclusion order.

JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting

  • Exclusion exceeds constitutional power/falls into racism.

  • No relation between Japanese blood and combat dangers.

  • Misleading judgment shouldn't be given usual weight.

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting

  • Idealistic to apply constitutional standards in military sectors. Validating this measure validates racial discrimination.

LOVING v. VIRGINIA

  • Statute preventing marriage based on racial classification violates Equal Protection and Due Process.

  • Distinction based solely on race cannot rely on previous test; demands rigid scrutiny.

  • Designed to maintain white supremacy.

YICK WO v. HOPKINS

  • Laundry operators in non-brick buildings need a permit. Administration against specific class denies equal protection.

  • Law's applicability may proceed with an evil eye and unequal hand. Discrimination is illegal.

WASHINGTON v. DAVIS

  • Test measuring abilities; higher percentage of Black applicants failed. Disproportionate impact alone isn't unconstitutional.

  • Discriminatory purpose isn't always express but necessary.

  • Law not violating equal protection because it has harder effects on Black people.

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring

  • Objective criteria are more important than describing the mind of the actor. The line btw discriminatory purpose and impact is not nearly as bright.

Gender and Equal Protection

  • Sex discrimination: intermediate scrutiny; race discrimination: strict scrutiny.

CRAIG v. BOREN

  • Oklahoma statute: Beer sales to males under 21 prohibited, permitted to females over 18. Gender-based differential a violation for males.

  • Classifications by gender must serve important objectives and be substantially related.

  • Gender-based distinction doesn't closely achieve traffic regulation objective.

JUSTICE POWELL, concurring

  • Means adopted does not bear a fair and substantial relation to the objective, because it can't be proven that young men are bigger problem than young women.

JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring

  • Believes that this statute need only pass rational basis test.

  • Clearly shows that men cause more drunk-driving trouble than women.

UNITED STATES v. VIRGINIA

  • VMI refused to admit women; created VWIL. Parties must show an exceedingly persuasive justification to defend gender-based classification.

  • Cannot base on generalizations about gender/capacities.

  • Virginia failed to provide equal single-gender women’s institution.

Justice REHNQUIST, concurring

  • Classification by gender = need serve an important gov objective and achievement.

Justice SCALIA, dissenting

  • Court is trying to deny gender-based development differences that exist for women and men.

CITY OF RICHMOND v. J.A. CROSON COMPANY

  • Affirmative action