Equal Protection Flashcards
Sources
14A: States
5A: Federal
Three levels of Equal Protection Scrutiny
Fundamental Right or Suspect Classification: Strict
Quasi suspect class: intermediate
Neither: Rationa basis
Proving discriminatory classification
For strict or intermediate scrut to apply, there must be INTENT on the part of the government
How to show discrim intent by gov
1) Facially discriminatory
2) Discriminatory application +discrim intent OR
3) disparate impact + discrim intent
Suspect classifications
(SS)
1) Race
2) National Origin
3) Alienage (at state and local levels
—–citizenship status
Race/Nat origin: School integration: Segregation
If intentional, unconstitutional
Race/Nat origin: School integration: integratoin/busing
Ok, but must be narrowly tailored to remedy past segregation in that school district.
Busing is one way to achieve this
But MERE racial balancing of schools is unconstitutional.
Alienage classifications
Federal gov: Ratoinal Basis
State/local gov: Usually SS
—-exception: RB for positions and activities essential to democratic SELF GOVERNMENT
——–voting, jury service, holding elected office, police officer, public school teacher
Childrern of illegal aliens: probably RB. Look for irrational animus.
QUasi Suspect Classifications
1) Gender
2) Marital classifications of children
apply intermediate
Gender classifications
Substantially related to an important gov purpose. Gov must show an EXCEEDINGLY PERSUASIVE JUSTIFICATION.
Classifications based on role stereogtypes are typically invalid.
Suprising ways male discrim is okay
1) Drafting only men. RB.
2) Social Security paying women more. RB.
3) Statuory rape only applies to men. RB.
Maritial classification of children
Discriminatory regulatiosn intended to punish nonmarital children (law provides benefit to maritial children but not non-maritial) are invalid.
BUT, discriminating WITHIN the class are more likeley to be valid. (subset of nonmaritial children)
Rational basis: animus
Animus is not rational
