Chapter 6 Equal Protection Flashcards
Equal Protection
Fourteenth Amendment: Nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Suspect Classification
Racial discriminations are of suspect classification, and receives Strict Scrutiny!
Two things needed: 1) Needs to be suspicious and 2) has there been history of racial discrimination.
Gender/Sex Classification
Gets Intermediate Scrutiny.
Commercial Status/ Economic Distinction
Gets Rational Basis Scrutiny.
Bah vs. City of Atlanta (11th Circuit 1997)
1) Atlanta made a mandatory dress code for cab drivers, and Bah sued for an “Equal Protection” violation.
2) This cases gets rational basis scrutiny because it is commercial distinction.
3) This passes rational basis with colors! There is nothing wrong with wanting all the cab drivers to be uninformed because this will make the overall image of Atlanta better for everyone, especially new travelers!
Dallas vs. Stanglin (U.S. Supreme Court 1989)
1) Stanglin owned the rink, half was for dancing, half was for rollerblading. Dallas passed an ordinance restricting admission to class E dance halls only to persons aged 14- 17. Stanglin sued claiming a violation of Equal Protection.
2) This case would receive Rational Basis Scrutiny because its a commercial distinction (restricting on a business).
3) They want to reduce teen pregnancy! Yes it is a legit reason. Dallas said that by not allowing young girls to dance with older men, then they can reduce the pregnancy!
4) This passes rational basis scrutiny! Pretty much everything passes rational basis scrutiny!
U.S. vs. Windsor (U.S. Supreme Court 2013)
1) A same sex couple legally married in New York challenged the Federal Defense of Marriage Statute (DOMA) defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal law purposes as being unconstitutional. 2) The statute fails to pass even the rational basis test. Since its only purpose is to discriminate against a class of persons that the state has already deemed to be married, this is not a legitimate purpose.
Craig vs. Boren (U.S. Supreme Court 1976)
1) Oklahoma statute prohibited men under to the age of 21 to buy beer, and women who were under the age of 18.
2) This case would receive intermediate scrutiny (gender). The ends were to reduce drunk driving (good).
3) State needs substantial interest here! Wanted to reduce drunk driving! (yes it is good) (ends).
4) Does the means you take directly advance the reduction of drunk driving? The law only says that men can’t buy the alcohol, but they can still drink it; so you are not directly reducing drunk driving!
5) So this does not pass Intermediate scrutiny, and is unconstitutional!
Grutter vs. Bollinger (U.S. Supreme Court 2003)
1) U of Michigan law school wanted a diverse student body, so they considered the race of applicants for admission and gave additional consideration to applicants who were racial minorities.
2) Grutter sued claiming that the U of Michigan admission policy was a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
3) This is a Racial distinction and gets Strict Scrutiny! 4)
The state’s compelling interest was to have a diverse student body (Ends) (Yes this is acceptable by the courts but only limited to law schools!).
5) Court said they had the least restrictive means of choosing candidates (gave candidates check mark if they were good).
6) This passed the Supreme Court and passed the strict scrutiny test!
Summary of what falls into each different type of Scrutiny
Strict: Race, Ethnicity, Political speech and Fundamental Liberties.
Intermediate: Commercial speech and Gender.
Rational Basis: Business or Commercial Activity (other than speech), Economic, Social Regulation, and Age.
