Equal Protection - Case Take Aways Flashcards
Railway Express Agency v. New York
Railway Express Agency v. New York - No advertising on the sides of trucks
The N.Y. advertising ban is under inclusive in the sense that not all advertisements on the side of trucks will be illegal under the statute
The State offers the legitimate reasons of safety and reducing traffic congestion
- Practically, any police power regulation, which furthers a health, safety or welfare purpose will be considered legitimate.
- With the rational relationship and legitimate reasons, the statute is upheld despite its underinclusiveness (“it is not a requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all”)
- Concurrence: Points out the dividing line of for hire and self-promotion does effectively distinguish two degrees of harm
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer - N.Y.C. Transit Authority: Methadone users cannot apply
The “relevant difference” requirement holds that treating people differently can only be justified on the basis of differences between people relevant to the purpose of a rule.
- Narcotics users have a “relevant difference” pertaining to purpose of the rule finding suitable candidates for employment
- Analysis could stop at this point
The policy may be overinclusive in the sense that some recovering methadone users may be fit for employment, however rational basis review does tolerate overinclusiveness if there is a rational basis connecting the legitimate purpose and the means employed
- Legitimate Reason: Efficiency and safety at risk when employing narcotics users
- Rationally Related: Narcotics users are not considered for employment
- City is not required to pursue the most carefully tailored means of pursuing public safety and does not have to accept the costs of a more tailored, elaborate & nuanced approach
Romer v. Evans
Romer v. Evans - Colorado Amendment 2 –Homosexuality can never be a protected minority
Fails Rational Basis Review: A bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.
- Court is unpersuaded that this is not a classification and just a prevention of receiving a special status
- A law making it more difficult for one group of citizens to seek assistance from the government than another is a denial of the Equal Protection of the laws in the most literal sense and Amendment Two makes a classification for its own sake
Romer Rational Basis Review: Seems a little more strict type of rational basis review suggesting there are some instances where the court may use a heightened standard
- **Breadth Rational: So broad such that no purpose could extend to all of the applicable contexts **
U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno - Attempt to prevent hippies from receiving food stamps
Court looks beyond the “declaration of policy” finding the legislative history that exists suggests it is intended to prevent hippies and hippie communes from participating in the food stamp program.
- The equal protection clause does not allow a majoritarian desire to harm a politically unpopular group to constitute a legitimate governmental interest
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. - Special permit denied for mentally retarded home
Court uses the four factors for a suspect class finding the mentally retarded are not a suspect class because they constitute a group that has political clout and has not suffered from prejudice in the past (Satisfaction of some of the factors doesn’t demonstrate a suspect class)
Fails Rational Basis Review: There is no legitimate reason for requiring this particular group home to have a permit when other similar arrangements are not required to do so.
Korematsu v. United States
Classifications Based on Race and National Origin
Korematsu v. United States - Japanese Interment Camps)
Passes Strict Scrutiny: Legal restrictions that curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are subject to the most rigid scrutiny. But, pressing public necessity may sometimes justify such restrictions and there must be no less restrictive alternatives.
- The exclusion order imposed hardships on many citizens (overinclusive), but hardships are part of war and it was impossible to distinguish those who were loyal and disloyal. Extreme deference is granted to the judgment of the military.
Dissent: Argued the order was underinclusive by not covering Germans and Italians
Plessy v. Ferguson
Classifications Based on Race and National Origin
Plessy v. Ferguson - Plessy who is 1/8 black sits in an all-white railway carriage car
The states can constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities without denying equal protection.
- These laws were considered as part of the State’s police power and claimed they did not imply inferiority of the black race, if so the Black’s have construed it as such.
- Majority viewed the 14th Amendment as establishing citizenship and equality before the law, not integration and social equality.
-
Rational Basis Review: Such laws were not considered suspect and did not trigger heightened scrutiny
- Court never looked into whether facilities were actually “equal”
Brown v. Board of Education
Classifications Based on Race and National Origin
Brown v. Board of Education - Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware Elementary Schools
Landmark case viewed as the culmination of a brilliant legal strategy involving 2 prongs:
- NAACP brings cases in a strategic starting with the most obvious inequality (i.e., University of MD law school doesn’t admit blacks at all failing separate but equal)
- Cases involves schools going down the educational pyramid rather than up (i.e. higher education, then secondary, then primary)
Brown was the second round of being in front of the Supreme Court where court asked the parties to brief the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment
- Court cannot ascertain the original meaning and intent as to education because there was no public education at the time of drafting, therefore in consideration of the education system being one of the most important modern government functions the issue will be analyzed the light of the role of public education in American life today.
- Court finds separate but equal has no place in education for denying to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal.
- Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
Loving v. Virginia
Classifications Based on Race and National Origin
Loving v. Virginia - No Interracial Marriage in Virginia – Burdens Whites & Minorities Equally
Fails Strict Scrutiny: Court uses the test of a “permissible” state reason (as compared to “compelling”)
- Virginia argues the law does not deny equal protection because it regulates all races even-handedly and serves the interest of preserving “racial integrity” but the Court doesn’t see anything other than miscegenation statute with a racial discrimination being the reason
- The miscegenation statutes are improper because they make the legal consequences of an action turn on the races of the persons participating in it.
Palmer v. Thompson
Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration
Palmer v. Thompson - Closing pools instead of desegregating is found not to be discriminatory
An official governmental action that denies access to public facilities to all citizens does not violate the Equal Protections Clause of the United States Constitution.
- Improper motive alone does not trigger strict scrutiny and is not sufficient to treat the state action as a racial classification
- Court says racial motivation may have existed but motivation is extremely difficult to ascertain because there may be different motivations too intricately interwoven
- Evidence existed that economic concerns were a consideration
- Holding does suggest the operative effect of a law is an important factor
Washington v. Davis
Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration
Washington v. Davis - Police Certification Test is found not to be discriminatory
Racial impact alone is not enough to invalidate legislation there must also demonstrate a discriminatory purpose.
- In the absence of a discriminatory purpose, court uses rational basis review
- A rule that is neutral on its face and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest is constitutional even though it may impact a race disproportionately, though operative effect is more important than purpose.
- Passes Rational Basis Review: The test is administered generally to all applicants and is used to determine the level of verbal skills the candidate has.
- Disproportionate impact is not the sole indicator of invidious racial discrimination.
- Legitimate purpose (not a device to discriminate) to try to advance the police force with increased verbal skills
- Testing verbal skills as a measure of initial competence is rationally related to trying to advance the police force
- Passes Rational Basis Review: The test is administered generally to all applicants and is used to determine the level of verbal skills the candidate has.
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney – State hiring practice prefers Veterans
Discriminatory Purpose – Implies more than intent as a violation or intent awareness of consequences, such that purpose must be in part “because of” not just “in spite of”
- Purpose could not be established “in spite of” veterans being 1% women, because “veteran” is a gender neutral classification
- Passes Rational Basis Review: Legitimate purpose of benefiting veterans is rationally related to the hiring preference
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Facially Neutral Laws With a Racially Discriminatory Impact or Administration
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. - Rezoning denied
Court weighs the Cleburne Factors to establish a discriminatory motivation through the pattern of impact (discriminatory impact is undisputed) shifting the burden to the government to show that absent the impermissible motivations the result would be the same.
- Government meets their burden demonstrating that the decision to deny rezoning was based on a desire to maintain the area as single-family housing, and not for discriminatory motives.
- The burden of proof remains with the plaintiff to prove that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the decision.
- Case remanded.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company
Benign Racial Classifications
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company - 30% of sub-contracts must go to MBE’s in Richmond, Virginia
All classifications based on race must be supported by a compelling government interest and withstand strict-scrutiny. (Majority Achieved Approving Strict Scrutiny Regardless of Beneficial Effects)
Arguments For:
- Racial classifications are suspect, that means simple legislative assurance of good intention cannot suffice
- Race conscious government action is inherently suspect & has lasting effects
- Discrete & Insular Minority (U.S. v. Carolene Products Company, Footnote 4)
Arguments Against:
- Political Process Argument: The dominate racial group is burdening themselves to help a historically disadvantage minority through its own devices & before the court gets involved
Fails Strict Scrutiny: Without evidence that the race-based initiative was created to remedy past racial discrimination supporting a compelling governmental interest, the race-based initiative is unconstitutional.
- The 30% quota allowed by the Plan was not “narrowly tailored to any goal, except perhaps outright racial balancing.” (Alternatives Exist)
- The race-based measure of Richmond, Virginia’s construction set-aside program makes only a “generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in . . . [the construction industry and] provides no guidance for a legislative body to determine the precise scope of the injury it seeks to remedy.”
Grutter v. Bollinger
Benign Racial Classifications
Grutter v. Bollinger - University of Michigan Law School’s goal of achieving “critical mass”
When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest (i.e., diversity in schools), such action does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection so long as the narrow-tailoring requirement is also satisfied
- Schools may consider race as a part of the admissions process as long as it is only one factor in an individualized process. (Process must be flexible in order to consider all aspects of a student against all applicants)
Passes Strict Scrutiny: Schools have a compelling interest in having diverse student bodies & it was narrowly tailored such that the program does not have quotas, does not unduly burden minorities, is flexible like the Harvard plan, and has termination measures
