Constitutional Law Flashcards
A court would assess the constitutionality of the Act under the “rational basis” test. Here, the state has a “legitimate interest” in promoting safe and efficient firefighting and lowering the retirement age is “rationally related” to achieving this interest. Thus, a court is likely to conclude that State A has not violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The applicable constitutional provision is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Amend. XIV, Sec. 1. The allegedly unconstitutional discrimination is age-based discrimination because employees like the firefighter cannot continue as firefighters once they reach 50 years of age. The Supreme Court has developed three levels of scrutiny for equal protection claims: strict, intermediate, and the lowest, “rational basis.” The Court has consistently applied rational basis scrutiny to age-based classifications. Under the rational basis test, the issues are whether State A has a “legitimate interest” that is served by the discriminatory classification and whether the means used to achieve this legitimate state interest are “reasonably related” or “rationally related” to that state interest. The Court generally applies this test with substantial deference to legislative judgment. Under the rational basis test, it is not necessary for the fit between ends and means to be perfect. The fit merely has to be “reasonable” or “rational.
Because age-based discrimination, in the form of a mandatory retirement age, is not a plausible constitutional injury, Congress does not have the authority under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation to remedy that injury.
Congress’s powers are limited to those expressed or implied in the Constitution. To enact a law on a particular topic, Congress must rely on some identified grant of legislative authority in the Constitution. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment is one such grant of authority.
Because age is not a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause, states may dis-criminate on the basis of age without offending the Fourteenth Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The proposed federal statute would prohibit mandatory retirement requirements that courts likely would find constitutional. See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (holding that a federal statute generally prohibiting age discrimination by employers (including states) exceeded the power of Congress to legislate pursuant to Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment). Indeed, Congress’s primary goal here would be to outlaw a kind of discrimination that does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Flores clearly held that Congress cannot, under its Fourteenth Amendment power, legislate to prohibit constitutional behavior where there is no constitutional injury to be pre- vented or remedied. Therefore, a court would likely hold that Congress would not have the power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact a statute barring age requirements for firefighters.
