Equal Protection

Question 1

When does an equal protection claim arise?

Answer 1

An equal protection claim arises whenever the government treats people differently from others. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is limited to state action. When the equal protection clauses not applicable to the federal government, the due process clause of the fifth amendment, contains an equal protection component.thus, there are really two equal protection guarantees.

Question 2

Applicable standards

Answer 2

If a fundamental right or suspect classification is involved, the strict scrutiny standard is used to evaluate the regulation. If I quasi suspect classification is involved, intermediate scrutiny is the applicable standard. If the classification does not affect a fundamental right or involved suspect or quasi suspect classification, the rational basis standard applies

Question 3

Proving discriminatory classification

Answer 3

Restrict or intermediate scrutiny to be applied, there must be intent on the part of of the government to discriminate. Intent may be shown by:

A law that is discriminatory on its face

A discriminatory application of a facially neutral law

Or

A facially neutral law with a disparate impact on a protected class of people

The second and third ways to show intentional discrimination are the most difficult to prove. A discriminatory application or effect alone is not enough. The legislatures discriminatory intent must be shown. For example, by evidence of a history of discrimination.

Question 4

Suspect Classifications - generally

Answer 4

Classifications are suspect if they are based on race, national origin, or at the state and local levels alienage

Question 5

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - generally

Answer 5

Classifications based on race or national origin are judged by a strict scrutiny standard.

Question 6

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - school integration

Answer 6

Intentional segregation violates the constitution. If school systems and attendance zones are established in a racially neutral manner, there is no violation. Thus, there is no violation if housing patterns result in racial imbalance in schools.

Question 7

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - school integration - remedying intentional school segregation

Answer 7

If it’s proven that a school board has engaged in the racial districting of schools, the board must take steps to eliminate the effects of that discrimination, like busing students. If the school refuses to do so, a court can order the school district to take all appropriate steps to eliminate the discrimination, but the order cannot go beyond the purpose of remedying, the past effects of segregation

Question 8

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - school integration - compare: promoting diversity

Answer 8

The Supreme Court has found that assigning students to a public primary or secondary school on the basis of race solely to promote diversity, as opposed to remedy past intentional segregation, does not satisfy strict scrutiny

Question 9

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - “benign” government discrimination - generally

Answer 9

Government actions, whether by federal state or local governmental bodies, that favors racial or ethnic minorities is subject to the same strict scrutiny standard as is government action discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities 

Question 10

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - “benign” government discrimination - remedying past discrimination

Answer 10

The government has a compelling interest in remitting past governmental discrimination against a racial or ethnic minority. The past discrimination must have been persistent and readily identifiable. A race based plan cannot be used to remedy general past society discrimination.

Question 11

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - “benign” government discrimination - where there was no past discrimination

Answer 11

Even where the government hasn’t engaged in past discrimination, it may have a compelling interest in affirmative action in limited context. However, remember that the governmental action must be narrowly tailored to that interest.

Question 12

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - “benign” government discrimination - diversity in higer education

Answer 12

Previously, the Supreme Court allowed universities to consider race in a limited way, and making admission decisions. This was based on the universities claim that they had a compelling interest in having a diverse student body. However, the court brought the rule for universities in line with a rule for lower public schools, stating that having a diverse student body is not an interest compelling enough to overcome strict scrutiny.

Question 13

Suspect Classifications - race and national origin - discriminatory legislative apportionment

Answer 13

If a plaintiff can show that a redistricting plan was drawn up predominantly on the basis of racial considerations, strict scrutiny is triggered, and the plan will violate the equal protection clause unless the government can show that the plan is nearly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Question 14

Suspect Classifications - alienage classifications - federal classifications

Answer 14

Because of congresses plenary powers over aliens, federal alien in classifications are not subject to strict scrutiny. Such classifications are valid if they are not arbitrary and unreasonable (rational basis)

Question 15

Suspect Classifications - alienage classifications - state and local classifications

Answer 15

Generally, state or vocal laws on alienage, meaning citizenship, status, our suspect classification subject strict scrutiny.

State and local governments may not require US citizenship for employment generally, government benefits, property ownership, or admission to the bar.

Question 16

Suspect Classifications - alienage classifications - state and local classifications - exception

Answer 16

If a lot of discriminates against alien participation in state government, the rational basis standard is applied. Also, the rational basis standard is used for state and local laws limiting certain non-elective offices involving important public policy. For example, police officers, probation, officers, and primary and secondary school teachers as these are positions essential for Democratic self governance. 

Question 17

Suspect Classifications - alienage classifications - undocumented aliens - generally

Answer 17

Undocumented aliens are not a suspect classification. Thus, state laws regarding them them are subject to a rational basis standard.

Question 18

Suspect Classifications - alienage classifications - undocumented aliens - compare to undocumented alien children

Answer 18

Denial of free public education to undocumented alien children has been held to be invalid. Strict scrutiny does not apply though. The Supreme Court has used language and its opinions, evoking, both irrational basis, standard, and intermediate scrutiny.

If you are unsure what standard to apply, apply rational base review because that is the default. Just cannot be based on animus.

Question 19

Quasi-suspect classifications - what are the two main ones

Answer 19

Legitimacy and gender

Question 20

Quasi-suspect classifications - gender classifications - generally

Answer 20

Gender classifications are reviewed under the intermediate scrutiny standard: they must be substantially related to an important government purpose. The government bears the burden of showing an exceedingly persuasive justification for the discrimination.

Gender classifications based based on rule stereotypes are generally invalid, whereas those designed to remedy past discrimination are more likely to be upheld under intermediate scrutiny.

Question 21

Quasi-suspect classifications - marital vs nonmarital children

Answer 21

Distinctions drawn between marital and non-marital children are also reviewed under the intermediate scrutiny standard: they must be substantially related to an important government interest. Discriminatory regulations intended to punish non-marital children are invalid. For example, a law providing a benefit to marital children, but not to nonmarital children.

If you see law affecting a whole class, probably prejudice so invalid. If it’s a subset of non-marital, it might be valid.

Question 22

Other classifications - generally

Answer 22

All other classifications are evaluated under the rational basis standard. These include age, disability, and wealth, classifications. For example, mandatory retirement ages can be established, and because education is not a fundamental right, there is no denial of equal protection when wealthier children can afford to pay for access to the best state operated schools. 

Question 23

Other classifications - animus not rational

Answer 23

If the governments only interest in denying a benefit to or imposing, a burden on a group of people is a dislike of them, the classification will not meet rational basis review.