Equal Protection Flashcards
Analysis for Standards of Review
Rational review, unless
1. Fundamental right (due process), or
a. Strict scrutiny, or
b. Rational review with a
bite
2. Suspect classification
(equal opportunity)
a. Strict scrutiny, or
b. Intermediate scrutiny
(gender)
Railway Express Agency v. New York
NY ordinance prohibits vehicles with ads on the vehicles unless the ads are for the business that owns the truck
1. State interest is safety
2. Railway argues law is not rationally related
a. should regulate all trucks
b. times square?
Court finds law is rational
1. The law maybe underinclusive.
2. It does not need to be the most effective option to be “rationally related” to the state’s argued legitimate purpose.
Prof note: “Could be” is the bar for rationally related to the state interest. Deference to the legislature.
Armour v. Indianapolis
Reducing administrative costs: The lowest bar for legitimate state interest under rational basis review.
- State charges overtime or lump sum for replacing sewage system
- Later, forgave debts, but did not offer repayment
Argument: other systems would allow some repayment
Court: Not good, but rational
CJ Roberts Dissent:
1. While rational review may be a low bar, in order for it to be relevant we must strike down a law when appropriate.
2. Here, the administrative burden is as simple as cutting a check.
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
The law may be overinclusive.
1. Transportation authority does not allow the hiring of drug users, including those on methadone
2. Methadone users who do not recede just as likely to be good workers as general pop
Court Rules:
1. The legitimate interest of safe drivers is clear
2. The rule may be overinclusive, and is valid even if it excludes some methadone users who would be safe drivers from employment
Policy Considerations for Standards of Review
- The court is hesitant to make new rights and even more hesitant to make new suspect classes (where does it stop?)
- Will the decision of finding a law to be unconstitutional under rational basis review create a flood of suits?
Examples of legitimate state interests
We know two things that are explicitly illegitimate
1. The desire to harm a group
2. Trying to regulate based on morality. “Punish sin.” (Lawrence v. Texas)
Legitimate reasons:
1. Government efficiency (even a very small amount) - Armour v. Indianapolis
2. Safety (The steps can be incremental) - Railway Express Agency v. New York
3. Can be less effective than other options - New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
How to identify suspect classes
Congress has decided that the 14th amendment applies to suspect classes
A suspect class is:
1. Immutable characteristic (physically can not change or should not be asked to change)
2. Subject to majority prejudice and discrimination
3. Politically powerless
Suspect Classes
- Race
- Religion
- Nationality
- Legitimacy
- [alienage] (only subject to strict scrutiny if the states are treating someone unequally, not the feds. May be overturned soon.)
Plessy v. Ferguson
Test case to show ridiculousness of segregation
Plessy, ⅞ white, purposefully sits in white only train car, refuses to move and is arrested
Court:
1. There are two kinds of equality: social and political (civil rights)
2. 14th amendment does not enforce social equality
3. segregation laws aren’t harmful, just provide order for social hierarchy
Harlan Dissent:
1. The obvious underlying reason for the law is a belief by the legislature that African Americans are an inferior race
2. Original intent of EP is antisubordination
3. Colorblind Constitution
Brown v. Board of Education
Agrees with Harlan’s dissent in Plessy: there is harm in segregation. No segregation in public schools.
Harlan’s Dissent in Plessy Used Today
“Colorblind Constitution” - now used to get rid of affirmative action
- This is not supported by the original constitution (was more of an aspirational statement)
- Also arguably not supported by examining the actions of the congress that enacted the 14th amendment
a. Sanctioned segregated
schools
b. Other laws which
legislated based on race
to the benefit of
minorities
Strauder v. West Virginia
The attempt to harm is clear = subordination
- Scotus strikes down virginia law preventing African Americans from serving on juries
- The law is based on race, not other qualifications: clearly an attempt to subordinate and therefore unconstitutional
Korematsu v. United States
1st case by SCOTUS to say laws using race classifications are immediately subject to strict scrutiny
Court says law enabling Japanese internment camps passes strict scrutiny despite
1. no detail in military’s “compelling interest”
2. Not narrowly tailored (all Japanese detained, no German or Italian Americans)
since been overruled
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Unequal application = subordination
Facts
1. Permits required for laundries operated unless inside stone buildings (fire risk)
2. 1 out of 200 permit requests granted to Chinese, while 80 out of 81 were granted to other applicants
Court reasons:
1. It does not matter whether or not the injured parties here are citizens, “persons” are protected
2. If the law is applied in a discriminatory manner it does not matter that it is neutral on its face
Loving v. Virginia
However, equal application does not mean there is no subordination
Rule: 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.
Johnson v. California
Court switches the anti subordination rationale to a colorblind constitution rationale: Even race classifications seeking to assist those in the minority classification are subject to strict scrutiny
- CA prison segregates prisoners for 60 days, gang violence concerns
- Court reasons race is involved so strict scrutiny applies (Ginsberg disagrees)
- Prison policy struck down, not narrowly tailored
Defending Affirmative Action
- Could maybe argue compelling interest, but
- How to narrowly tailor? There are things other than race (such as poverty) that could identify who to help
Washington v. Davis
A state-sponsored disproportionate impact on a racial group only violates EP if it is motivated by a discriminatory purpose
- Challenge to verbal skills test for hiring police in DC
- Test disproportionately failed by African Americans
Court reasons
1. A discriminatory purpose can be inferred from the totality of the facts, including the fact that a law burdens one race more heavily than another.
2. However, the mere instance of a disproportionate impact does not, without more, trigger strict scrutiny by the courts.
Craig v. Boren
Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of “non-intoxicating” 3.2 percent alcoholic beer to males under the age of twenty-one, but permitted the sale of such beer to females over the age of 18
Rule: Gender classifications trigger intermediate scrutiny
(1) substantially related to an
(2) important gov purpose
United States v. Virginia
Public military school is male only. Court holds must allow women.
J. Ginsberg adds “exceedingly persuasive” to intermediate scrutiny
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County
CA law: Statutory rape when both are under age of 18, only the male is guilty
Court says it is intermediate scrutiny but seems to be applied as if it were rational review
Nguyen v. INS
Law makes it more difficult for a US father to get citizenship for child born overseas than a US mother
The Court is extremely deferential to immigration issues; puts this even closer to rational review
Court finds DNA tests insufficient, need to prove a bond, and mothers inherently have a bond.
O’Connor Dissent: The Court relies on sex-based stereotypes
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma
OK law imposing sterilization on “habitual criminals,” those who have committed three or more crimes involving moral turpitude
Holding: There is a fundamental interest in having children, and denying that interest to one group of criminals but not others, who have committed substantively similar crimes, violates equal protection.
Zablocki v. Redhail
WI statute: if you owe child support, you can not get a marriage license
There is a fundamental interest in marriage, and the law is discriminatory against the poor.
1. some people may never have the money
2. getting married may improve stability
3. this does not help get child support paid
