CASES: Equal Protection Flashcards
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Segregated Schools and Equal Protection
Warren – Separate educational facilities based on racial classifications are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The opportunity for education had not been equally provided to minority students, as the existence of segregation has a profound and detrimental effect on their hearts and minds. Modern studies confirm that the children experiencing segregation feel inferior, become less motivated, and perform at a lower standard than children that do not experience segregation.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Segregated DC Schools and Fifth Amendment
Warren – Racial segregation of public schools in the District of Columbia violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment does apply to DC, but it does not contain an equal protection clause like the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the concepts of equal protection and due process are closely related. And having already concluded that the Constitution prohibits the states from discriminating in public education, we cannot rationally exempt the federal government from the same prohibition.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Black Americans and Constitutional Rights
Taney – OVERTURNED – People of African descent brought to the United States and held as slaves, as well as their descendants (either slave or free), are not considered citizens of the United States and are not entitled to the protections and rights of the Constitution.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Japanese Internment and Racial Classification
Black – OVERTURNED – Although all legal restrictions which restrict the civil rights of a single racial group are automatically suspect, it does not follow that all such restrictions are automatically unconstitutional. Such restrictions are subject to rigid scrutiny by the courts, and will only be upheld in instances of a “pressing public necessity.”
Concerns over preventing espionage and sabotage constitute a sufficient “pressing public necessity” to justify excluding Japanese Americans during WWII.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Interracial Marriage and Equal Protection
Warren – A state may not restrict marriages between persons solely on the basis of race under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Virginia argued that it was preventing interracial marriage for all people, not just Caucasians, but this argument is rejected. The mere equal application of a law is not enough to overcome the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition on invidious racial discrimination. Such race-based classifications are suspect and subject to strict scrutiny.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Segregated Trains and Equal Protection
Brown – OVERTURNED – Public accommodations that are segregated according to racial classifications do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as long as such accommodations are “separate but equal.”
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Racist Police Hiring Process and Equal Protection
White – A state-sponsored racial classification violates the equal protection provisions in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause only if it is shown to have both a disproportionate impact on a particular race and is motivated by invidious racial discrimination.
McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
Racist Death Penalty and Equal Protection
Powell (5-4) – A discriminatory purpose implies 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.
McCleskey offers no evidence that the Georgia state legislature enacted the death penalty statute because of an anticipated racially discriminatory effect.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Race Quotas and Equal Protection
Powell – Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a public university may not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions policies, even if doing so benefits members of minority races.
Public universities may consider race as a “plus” in its overall evaluation of an applicant, but may not make admissions decisions solely based on race.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Law School Affirmative Action and Equal Protection
O’Connor (5-4) – Consideration of race as a factor in admissions by a state law school does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because supporting student body diversity is a compelling state interest; however, the school must demonstrate it previously made a serious, good faith consideration of workable, race-neutral alternatives to achieve the sought-after racial diversity.
Reed v. Reed (1971)
Sexist Selection of Estate Administrators and Equal Protection
Burger – Gender-based classifications are inconsistent with the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause, so they must advance an important governmental interest in order to be upheld (intermediate scrutiny).
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Gender-Based Drinking Ages and Equal Protection
Brennan – A governmental regulation involving gender discrimination is constitutional if it is substantially related to the achievement of an important government purpose (intermediate scrutiny)
United States v. Virginia (1996)
All-Male Military Academy and Equal Protection
Ginsburg (7-1) – All governmental gender classifications must be substantially related to an important government purpose that can be demonstrated by the government if it offers an exceedingly persuasive justification for the classification.
Inherent differences exist between men and women, but these differences can be used only for purposes such as remedying the history of sex discrimination against women, or promoting equal employment opportunities, not for denigration of the members of either sex or for artificial constraints on an individual’s opportunity.
Michael M v. Superior Court (1981)
California Statutory Rape Law and Equal Protection
Rehnquist (5-4) – A state statutory-rape law in which only males can be charged does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
California has a significant interest in preventing illegitimate pregnancies among teen females because, when teen pregnancy occurs, the physical and financial risks are uniquely borne by females.
Brennan (dissenting) – Although California may have a legitimate purpose, the law’s sex discrimination is not substantially related to that purpose. California offers no proof that the discriminatory statute is more effective at accomplishing this purpose than a gender-neutral statute.
Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)
Sexist Draft Registration and Equal Protection
Rehnquist (6-3) – A congressional act that requires men and not women to register for a military draft does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution because women cannot statutorily participate in combat and thus are not similarly situated as men.
Marshall (dissenting) – The question at issue is not whether women may be excluded from combat, but instead whether women may be constitutionally excluded from participating at all in the armed services. As thousands of non-combat positions exist in the armed forces, the total exclusion of women from the draft is not substantially related to the government’s purpose of maintaining an effective defense.
