Equal Protection Flashcards
Fourteenth Amendment
“No…State [shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Who does this apply to?
Governments, not private actors.
Where is equal protection derived from?
State - 14th Amendment
Federal - 5th Amendment’s due process clause.
What does equal protection apply to?
STATE ACTION
When is state action present?
- Entanglement exception
when “there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the [private] entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
Exceptions to state action
(1) government may delegate power to perform a public function to a private person (public function exception);
(2) the government may become so inextricably entangles with the private person that their separate identities are lost (entanglement);
(3) the state may so coerce or extraordinarily encourage the private action that the private actor is seen to have lost its presumptive power of voluntary choice—its act is directed by the state (coercion).
Smith v. Allwright
Allwright (overturned Grovey): When party membership “is also the essential qualification for voting in a primary to select nominees for a general election, the State makes the action of the party the action of the state. The Supreme Court held that Texas’ grant to the Democratic Party of the power to establish voter qualifications is a delegation of state function that makes the party’s action the action of the State.
4 common areas in which the exception arises (state action)
(1) judicial and law enforcement actions (Marsh);
(2) Voter incentives permitting discrimination (Allwright);
(3) Gov’t licensing and regulation;
(4) Gov’t subsidies.
Three tiers of judicial scrutiny
(1) Minimal: government action will be struck down only if challenger can show that the action is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
(2) Intermediate: Government action will be upheld only if government can prove that its action is substantially related to the accomplishment of an important government interest.
(3) Strict: Government action will only be upheld if government can prove that its action is necessary to achieve a compelling government objective.
Justice Sone’s famous footnote 4: United States v. Carolene Products
SIR
Court would exercise a stricter standard of review when a law appears on its face to violate a provision of the United States Constitution, restricts the political process in a way that could impede the repeal of an undesirable law, or discriminates against “discrete and insular” minorities.
(1) Conflict on their face with specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution (e.g. First Amendment rights, free speech).
(2) Inhibit the democratic process (e.g., voting, dissemination of information, peaceable assembly).
(3) Are based on religion, nationality, or race, or membership in a discrete and insular minority group.
Quasi-suspect classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny include
gender, illegitimate birth
All other classifications receive only rational basis review, such as…
age (Murgia - A state statute instituting mandatory retirement for police officers at age fifty is subject to rational basis review and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.)
Economics/wealth (REA; Fritz)
REA (Railway Express Agency v. New York)
A state law that is substantially underinclusive does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause because a state may rationally decide to address a public problem in phases.
The Appellant, Railway Express Agency (Appellant), brought suit against the Appellee, the State of New York (Appellee). The Appellant argued that a statute prohibiting advertising on vehicles, except for notices upon business delivery vehicles engaged in the regular work of the owner, are unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
interest - traffic congestion
Fritz
Under rational basis review, Congress’s actual purpose behind a law is irrelevant and the law must be upheld as not violating the Fifth Amendment if any statement of facts may reasonably be conceived to justify its discrimination.
Facts: The retirement fund for railroad employees originally provided a windfall for those who were eligible for social security and railroad benefits. But, in 1974, Congress determined that the system would be bankrupt by 1981 if it continued to pay the windfall. Therefore, legislation was enacted to reduce the costs and make the program financially viable.
- RR Retirement Act is Constitutional
Railway Express Agency Inc. v. New York
- advertising in new york
A state law that is substantially underinclusive does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause because a state may rationally decide to address a public problem in phases.
legit interest = public safety
under-inclusion
can allow a small powerful political group to disadvantage others
Over-inclusion
includes more ppl than necessary to fix the problem, will burden more than we need thus becoming inefficient
United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno
Food Stamp Act to govern and reform its food stamp program. Section 3(e) of the Act excluded from participation in the food stamp program any household containing an individual who was unrelated to any other member of the household
Rule: A state regulation that arbitrarily creates two classes of persons and deprives one class of government benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it is based on a mere legislative preference for one class that is not rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
Romer v. Evans
Rule: A law prohibiting anti-discrimination protections for the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
* The Amendment does treat homosexual persons differently from the population as a whole because it withdraws from them, but no other persons, specific legal protection from discrimination, and it forbids the reinstatement of laws and policies that would protect their interests.
City of Cleburne, TX v. Cleburne Living Center
In 1980, the Cleburne Living Center (Center) (plaintiff) filed an application for a special use permit with the City of Cleburne, Texas (City) (defendant). The Center sought a permit to build a residential facility for mentally disabled men and women. The facility would house up to thirteen persons, who would be supervised at all times. The City denied the permit application, and the Center brought suit in federal district court challenging the denial. The district court upheld the denial. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the mentally disabled were a quasi-suspect class of persons and thus intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the City’s denial of the permit application. It invalidated the denial as not furthering an important government purpose. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The mentally disabled are not a quasi-suspect class and thus any legislative regulations affecting their rights are subject to rational basis review and not intermediate scrutiny.
1. (possible to argue that persons with mental disabilities have immutable disabilities but there is a spectrum…some people can hold down jobs)
2. History of discrimination (yes there is a history but more recently we have become more favorable).
3. lack of access to political power (if there is severe disability the person may be unable to vote and participate in the political process).
* Firstly, it is undeniable that mentally disabled persons require special care for functioning in the everyday world, so legislative judgments are likely to be rational and should not be scrutinized more closely. Secondly, on a national scale, federal lawmakers have shown great appreciation for the plight of the mentally disabled and enacted significant legislation prohibiting discrimination against them. Applying heightened scrutiny and requiring the legislature to show that these efforts are substantially related to an important governmental purpose might actually discourage the legislature from continuing to act to protect the mentally disabled. Thirdly, the existence of so many regulations make it clear that the mentally disabled are not politically powerless, but have already been able to attract the attention of lawmakers to provide for their rights. Fourthly, finding the mentally disabled a quasi-suspect class would pose problems in the future for classifying other groups as such that possibly share some but not all characteristics with mentally disabled persons as a group.
interest - negative attitudes, harassment from nearby school children
legitimate state interests
Public safety (REA)
Conservation and distribution of state resources; solvency of gov’t programs (Moreno)
Alleviating hunger and malnutrition (Moreno)
illegitimate state interests
HADA - Harm And Discrimination Attitude
Desire to harm a politically unpopular group (Moreno)
Animus towards a class of persons (Romer)
Discrimination against out-of-staters or newcomers (Zobel; Hooper)
Unsubstantiated negative attitudes and fear (Cleburne)
Plyer v. Doe
Plyer v. Doe: (State is not justified in showing a substantial state interest.
- Seems to be a higher burden than rational basis…but not quite intermediate scrutiny. (a one of a kind scrutiny) (more than rational basis but not all the was to strict, we call this heightened scrutiny). Half of rational basis and half of intermediate scrutiny.)
Texas Legislature authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country and denied state funds to those that did not exclude such children.
Rule: The 14th Amendment states “[no] State shall [deny] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
* All persons are entitled to the equal protection of the law. (so undocumented people still entitled to equal protection).
* Suspect class = immutable characteristic. (another way to get to strict scrutiny is a fundamental right).
Korematsu
State laws restricting the rights of persons based on race are subject to strict scrutiny and will only be upheld if they further a “pressing public necessity.”
interest - involvement in WWII
suspect class
immutable characteristic
immutable characteristic
suspect class
3 ways to prove purposeful discrimination
- Facially discriminatory classifications, e.g. Strauder v. West Virginia (white male jury)
- Neutral classifications applied in a discriminatory fashion, e.g. Yick Wo (laundry mat must be brick or stone–not wood)
- Neutral classifications motivated by discrimination that produce discriminatory effects, e.g. Gomillion v. Lightfoot (redrawing boundaries of the city)
Strauder v. West
all white jury
facially discriminatory
Yick Wo
laundry mat case - must be brock/store not wood
neutral producing a discriminatory effect
Gomillion v. Lightfoot
redrawing boundaries. discriminatory purpose.
When do you decide if there is intentional discrimination?**
Arlington Heights Factors
Arlington Heights Factors
- A clear pattern that cannot be explained except on the basis of race (Gomillion)
- Historical background of the law, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes
- Events leading up to adoption of law
- Departures from normal procedures or normal substantive considerations
- Legislative or administrative history
CPHEDL - Can People Have Events During Lunch
Personnel Admin. of Mass v. Feeney
To prove that a state actor violates the Equal Protection Clause by enacting legislation with a discriminatory purpose, a plaintiff must show 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.
Statute constitutional. veteran preference statute providing that all veterans qualified for state civil service positions must be considered for appointment ahead of any qualifying non-veterans.
Fundamental Rights in equal protection
(1) it is an independently protected constitutional liberty (ex. Free speech); or
(2) it has been identified as “fundamental” for equal protection purposes even though it is not independently protected by the Constitution.
3 distinct types of “equal protection only” fundamental rights
VJIM - Vote, judicial, independent, Marriage
(1) the right to vote
(2) a limited right of access to the judicial process; and
(3) the independently recognized but unwritten right of interstate migration.
(4) Some would argue marriage (bc of the language in obergerfell…less settled).
The method of determining when a statutory classification is presumptively invidiously discriminatory.
Focus on the following factors: (668)
-Immutable traits
-History of purposeful unequal treatment
-Perennial lack of access to political power
Burdens of Prof (Washington v. Davis):
- Plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent with respect to a protected class, either facially or as applied;
- If done, BOP shifts to gov’t to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached same decision w/out any intentionally discriminatory motive.
- If gov’t does so, its action is subjected to minimal scrutiny. If not, heightened scrutiny applies.
govt Intent to discriminate on suspect class (in order for court to apply heightened level of discrimination must show????
intentional or purposeful, not enough that gov’t has passed a law that has disproportionate impact on class). (Washington v. Davis).
How to show such intent?
Arlington Heights factors
