Equal Protection Flashcards
When would “Strict Scrutiny” be applied to determine equal protection has been violated?
When dealing with a “Suspect Classification” such as race, religion, nationality, illegitimacy, or alienage
Or a “Fundamental Right” (like the right to vote)
When would “Intermediate Scrutiny” be applied to determine equal protection has been violated?
For gender classifications
If a fact pattern appears on final exam where the government is hurting a specific group, and you make an argument that they should be declared a suspect class, what qualifying statement should you add?
It is highly unlikely the Court will rule in favor of adding a new suspect class
(Haven’t added anyone to the suspect class list in over 50 years)
T/F: ANY government attempt to harm on racial lines violates equal protection
True
Determining whether a government action is substantially related to furthering an important government objective is an application of _____________ scrutiny.
Intermediate
T/F: States cannot treat non-citizens differently, but the federal government can
True
T/F: If a neutral law impacts a minority group, but there is no evidence of disproportionate application or “evil intent,” the law may NOT violate Equal Protection
True
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Washington v. Davis
In which case did the County government have discretion whether to grant or deny any application for a laundry business yet they were basically only denying Asian applicants? What was the outcome?
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Disproportionate application of neutral rules = violation of equal protection
If an Equal Protection claim does not deal with a Suspect Classification, nor a gender classification, what type of scrutiny should be applied? What is the standard?
Rational Basis Scrutiny
Must be “rationally related” to some “legitimate governmental interest”
In Washington v. Davis, black test takers tested worse than white test takers on a police hiring test resulting in black men being turned down for the job.
Was this an Equal Protection Violation? Why or why not?
No
Nothing from which to infer that there was an “Evil Intent”
Mere disproportionate effect is not enough (when the application is neutral)
There is no indication that the Washington, D.C. police department acted with a discriminatory purpose in administering the test.
In Craig v. Boren, an Oklahoma statute allowed females age 18+ to buy 3.2% beer, while males had to wait until they were 21. The stated purpose of the law was to improve traffic safety because statistics show that males are involved in more drinking related traffic accidents.
What type of Scrutiny did the Court come up with here? What does it require?
Intermediate Scrutiny
Requires the state show that the discrimination “substantially” served an important “government interest”
T/F: The gap between “Strict Scrutiny” and “Rational Basis Review” is a well defined middle ground
False
The area of “intermediate scrutiny” is open to a bit of interpretation.
For example, a gender discrimination case like United States v. Virginia, where no women at all are allowed at a state funded military school, might require a higher level of intermediate scrutiny closer to strict scrutiny.
On the other hand, cases like Michael M v. Superior Court, where statutory rape charges against a 17 year old male (for relations with a 16.5 year old female), might be closer to rational basis review.
T/F: Marriage and procreation are fundamental rights that, when affected by state action, call for “Strict Scrutiny” to ensure Equal Protection Violations don’t occur
True
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma statute, the Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act, allows the forced sterilization of any “habitual criminal” within the state.
A state law requiring forced sterilization of criminals convicted of crimes of moral turpitude unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental rights of marriage and procreation and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Criminals convicted of crimes of moral turpitude in the state are singled out as a suspect class for no legitimate state purpose
Zablocki v. Redhail 1978:
A Wisconsin statute prevented parents from marrying, who don’t have custody of their child and are required to pay child support, without first obtaining a court order granting them permission to marry.
What type of equal protection scrutiny applied here? Why?
Strict Scrutiny
It involved a “fundamental right” - marriage
Is education recognized as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment (impliedly or explicitly)?
What type of scrutiny should apply to a state regulation impacting the right to education?
No - Rational basis review
San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973)
Per state legislature, School Districts were responsible for providing 20% of the revenue required for the Texas Minimum Foundation School Program. They used the property taxes collected from local citizens to satisfy this requirement. In areas with lower property values, this results in significantly less funding left over for funding education.
No evidence was offered that the levels of educational expenditures in Texas provide an education falling short.
Thus, the Texas funding system should not be subjected to strict scrutiny, but rather should be analyzed in terms of whether it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.
