Equal Protection Flashcards
Fourteenth Amendment Protections
-
Equal protection
* Discriminatory treatment of similarly situated people -
Due process
i) Substantive – deprivation of life, liberty, or property without adequate justification
ii) Procedural – deprivation of life, liberty, or property without adequate process -
Privileges or immunities* (rarely a correct answer)
* Interference with rights of national citizenship
Must state and local laws comply with the EPC of the Fourteenth Amendment?
YES
All state and local laws must comply with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The equal protection clause is a constitutional safeguard that individuals or groups can use to challenge laws that treat similarly situated people differently (i.e., discriminate).
A statute that discriminates based on gender or legitimacy(i.e., quasi-suspect classes) is presumptively invalid unless it survives _______________?
Intermediate Scrutiny
This standard of review requires that the government prove that the statute is substantially related to an important government interest.
Rule Statement:
Under the equal protection clause, a statute is subject to intermediate scrutiny if it discriminates against a quasi-suspect class (i.e., sex/gender, legitimacy). Intermediate scrutiny requires that the government prove that the statute is substantially related to an important government interest.
What ways can a law intentionally discriminate?
A law can intentionally discriminate:
1) on its face – the language of the law distinguishes between different classes (intent presumed)
2) in its application – a facially neutral law is purposefully applied differently to different classes OR
3) in its motive – an otherwise neutral law was enacted to disproportionately impact a protected class.
When is heightened equal protection review appropriate?
Heightened equal protection review is appropriate when a law intentionally discriminates—on its face, in its application, or in its motive—against a quasi-suspect or suspect class.
If it does not intentionally discriminate, the law is subject to rational basis review which require that a law be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Presumptions for discriminatory laws
Equal Protection Clause
Presumptively Constitutional
Most laws—e.g.,
i) economic/education regulations
ii) taxation/government spending
iii) preservation of natural resources
Presumptively Unconstitutional
Law substantially impacts:
i) quasi-suspect class – sex/gender, illegitimate birth
ii) suspect class – ethnicity, alienage, race, nationality
iii) fundamental right – voting, interstate travel, privacy, First Amendment rights
What level of scrutiny must government actions that treat similarly situated persons differently (i.e., discriminate) pass?
Government actions that treat similarly situated persons differently (i.e., discriminate) can be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.
These challenges are typically subject to rational basis review.
This standard of review presumes that the government’s actions were constitutional.
As a result, the challenger must show that the law has no rational relation to any legitimate government interest—i.e., that the law is arbitrary or invidiously discriminatory.
Generally, equal protection challenges are subject to what level of scrutiny?
Rational basis.
- This requires the challenger to prove that the discriminatory government action has no rational relation to a legitimate government interest.
Fundamental Rights
- First VIP*
- strict scrutiny*
First Amendment freedoms
Voting
Interstate travel
Privacy
Marriage / family
Parental rights
Sexual acts
Contraceptives
Can a state prohibit convicted felons from voting in state elections?
YES.
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment permits states to prohibit felons—even those unconditionally released from prison—from voting in elections.
What level of scrutiny must state laws pass that discriminate against individuals based on wealth (e.g., ability vs. inability to pay a court fee)?
State laws that discriminate against individuals based on wealth (e.g., ability v. inability to pay a court fee) can be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.
Since an individual’s wealth is not a suspect class or quasi-suspect class, such laws are generally subject to rational basis scrutiny and upheld.
However, courts will depart from this test and apply strict scrutiny when a state law prohibits the exercise of a fundamental right (e.g., the right to appeal) based on an individual’s wealth.
Permissible Race-based Affirmative Action
All race-based classifications imposed by the government are subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause—even when those classifications are designed to promote racial equality.
That is because race is a suspect class that has historically faced discrimination. As a result, the government must prove that its racially discriminatory actions are necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
SCOTUS PRECEDENT:
In Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that these discriminatory programs can only survive strict scrutiny if the government proves that:
1) it has a compelling interest in remedying its own history of discrimination against the favored group AND
2) the discriminatory program is necessary because race-neutral methods are unavailable or insufficient to further that interest.
* Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.*
Discriminatory Action: Minority set-asides for government employment/contracts
Government Interest: Remedying its own history of racial discrimination
Freeman v. Pitts
Discriminatory Action: Race-based student assignments in public elementary/high schools
Government Interest: Remedying past intentional racial segregation in public schools
Grutter v. Bollinger
Discriminatory Action: Race-based admissions policy in state universities
Government Interest: Achieving diverse student body in higher education
Can state laws that discriminate against homeless individuals be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment EPC?
YES.
State laws that discriminate against homeless individuals can be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause.
SCOTUS has not recognized homelessness or poverty as a suspect or quasi-suspect class and if the state law does not impact a fundamental right, the law here is subject to rational basis review.
To satisfy this standard of review, the law must rationally relate to a legitimate government interest—it cannot disadvantage a group of persons solely based on animus toward that group.
Are state laws that impose citizenship requirements discriminatory?
YES.
State laws imposing citizenship requirements are discriminatory because they deny resident noncitizens benefits or opportunities that are generally available to U.S. citizens.
As a result, these laws can be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment EPC.
And since citizenship is a suspect class, these laws are typically unconstitutional unless they survive strict scrutiny.
- This requires the state to prove that the law is necessary (i.e., the least restrictive means) to achieve a compelling state interest.
Can congress authorize state classifications that discriminate based on citizenship?
NO.
Congress cannot authorize state classifications that discriminate based on citizenship. Such classifications must survive strict judicial scrutiny instead.
