Equal Protection Cases Flashcards
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
1) Facts: reconstruction abandoned, southern states passing laws requiring segregation. LA 1890: Separate Car act - requiring segregation in railroads, challenged by civil rights defense group, recruit Homer Plessy (1/8th black)
2) Q: Does segregation law violate equal protection – privileges and immunities, equal protection
3) Majority (Brown) Uphold law
- no legal inequality (explicit or implied, separate but equal, still use train
- reasonable regulation: apply custom sand traditions of people, preserve peace and good order
- 14th and law not meant to have moral transformation effect
4) Dissent (Harlan)**
- common purpose of 14th: establish equality
violates equal protection
- racsist intent, one view, impose badge of servitude
- legal separation inherently unequal
- segregation is moral law
- const is a moral doc with moral ends
5) Sig: Harlan’s dissent forms foundations for equal protection jurisprudence, see Brown, Loving
Carolene Products FN4
1) Individuals that have a constitutional right effected will have protection under the federal government from the states (instead of having the protections of the constitution only apply to the states).
2) establish strict(er) scrutiny when legislation:
- targets fundamental rights targets (first ten amendments)
- restricts political processes
– Discrete (easily identifiable, united by one distinguishable, immutable characteristic) and insular (lacking political ability to protect themselves) minorities
religious/ethnic/national/racial minorities
3) Q’s What are fundamental rights? What group classifications are inherently suspect?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
1) Facts: Virgina anti-miscegenation law, preventing interracial marriage
2) Const Q: Does miscegenation law violate equa;ly protecton
3) Majority (Warren) yes
a) purpose of 14th: eliminate all sources of invidious discrimination
b) Strict scrutiny test (Korematsu)
- racial discrimination requires heavy burden of justification
- need compelling state interest
- need narrow tailoring
c) no legitimate state interest: nothing independent of racial animus, maintain white supremacy
d) denial of a fundamental right to marry w/ racial classification, subversive to equality at heart of 14th (harlan in plessy)
Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)
1) Facts: Ariforce spousal benefits - dependency automatically granted to wives, but husbands must prove dependency
2) Q: justifiable sex distinciton
A: No 8-1 but standard unclear
2) concurrence (Powell)
a) use rational basis
b) judicial minimalism
- use established standard, no need to push for stricter one here
- do not preempt political debate of ERA ratification
3) Plurality (Brennan)
a) strict scrutiny
suspect classification
- - discrete and immutable characteristic
History of discrimnation
- even if beneficial = paternalistic
- distinguishing trait has no relation to contributions to society
- underrepresented in politics
Regents v. Bakke (1978)
1) facts: UC Davis medical school used race as criteria for admissions, Bakke white, has higher test scores, not admitted, UC Davis has racial quota
2) Const Q: Can university take race into account without violating 14th amendment?
3) A: 4 - 4 - 1 No and Yes, universities can take race into account but not use racial quotas. Bakke admitted.
4) Brennan
colorblind const = goal to aspire to
can have racial basis
- not divisive, deprivating, denigrating
Not strict sctuiny but intermediate
- not insular discrete minority
- no history of discrimination
5) Powell
- race always a suspect classification
14th protects persons not groups, how categorize races?
a) not benign discrimnation
- reinforce stereotypes, unfair: put past grievances on individual
b) call for strict scrutiny
- compelling diversity interest: diff viewpoint, exchange of ideas
- every student benefits not burden on eover the other
c) narrow tailored?
- cannot only look to race as factor (no quotas)
Critquing affitmitive action
1) Scalia remedial discrimination = discrimination divisive: debtor race, creditor race one race, American race Colorblind Const 2) Thomas no benign discrimination racial paternalism creates resentment questions accomplishments of indivs
Romer v. Evans (1996)
1) Facts: CO amendment 2 to consititution: denying official protections to those discrimnated against for sexual orientation
2) Q: does amendment 2 violate equal protection clause of 14th amendment
3) Topics of debate: Immutable charactersitic? Moral law? sex= strict scrutiny
4) Majority (Kennedy)
Kennedy evoked a rational basis test. The stated goal of the legislation was to respect moral/rel objections, but achieved a vastly disproportionate response. Law targets very specific group, by broadly removing all protections. Purpose = motivated by moral animus. Morality not a rational reason for a law.
5) Dissent (Scalia)
Law can have moral motivations; can express disapproval, forbid practices. If law can have moral reasons, clearly passes rational basis test. Scalia also noted that court was intervening on a debate and imposing on democracy.
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
1) Facts
Louisiana passes a law effectively creating a monopoly. Tradesmen argue that the monopoly would prevent them from their right to earn a wage, creating a situation of involuntary servitude, and infringing upon their privileges and immunities
2) Question
Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?
3) Majority
State granted monopolies do not violate the 13th and 14th. The intent of the amendments was directed at former slaves. Narrow interpretation. Privileges and immunities clause only granted minimal priveledges–run for office, etc and on federal level.
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
Facts
1) 5 different black people are separately denied the same public accommodations as a white person. Those denying access claim the 1875 Act was unconstitutional in restricting private acts of discrimination.
Question
2) Does congress have the power under the the 14th amendments enforcement power to prohibit racial discrimination in public places?
3) Majority
Establishes the State Action Doctrine where Congress can only prohibit discrimination by the state and not by individuals. Private discrimination is legal under the 14th.
STATE ACTION DOCTRINE
4) Dissent Harlan - regects state action doctrine, fed has power to regulate places of public accomadation, overcome lingering effects of slavery
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
1) Facts
San Francisco city ordinance requires laundries in wooden buildings to have a permit. 89% of the cities laundry business were owned by Chinese operators and none received a permit. 2 business owners received fines for not having a permit, refused to pay, and were imprisoned. They sued arguing an equal protection violation under the 14th amendment.
2) Question
Did the facially neutral law applied to all laundry facilities violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment due to its disproportionate impact of the Chinese owners?
3) Majority
The biased enforcement of the San Francisco laundry ordinance did violate the equal protection clause. The law was too arbitrary to the point it allowed one person to control another. A facially neutral law does not mean that it is applied equally. No rational basis and only reason the court found was to direct the ordinance to the chinese owners.
4) Relevant case fro seeing how court can overturn facially neutral law because it is discriminatory in effect
Korematsu v US (1944)
1) Facts
Excutive order 9066, signed by FDR gave military ability to set up internment camps for Japanese citizen. Japanese American refused to comply with internment
2) majority
Requires strict scrutiny– targeting Japanese Americans–government must prove burden is necessary. War time emergency = compelling interest, courts cannot be too involved in military action.
3) dissent
court can jusge military action as pertains to equal protection, actions would not pass any level of scrutiny
Targeted group: Japanese Americans
Scrutiny: strict
result: internment allowed
Brown v. Board
1) targeted group - african americans, spec. in schools
2) facts - black child cannot attend closeset school because it is a white school
3) Q: does segregation in schools violate equal protection clause
4) Unanimous yes - segregation inherently unequal, places badge of inferiority (harlan) on black race, modern science shows effects of seg, remand to lower courts to handle on case by case basis
Craig v. Boren
1) Tagerted group: Males betweeen 18-21. OK law brevented males from buying light abv beer until 21, females 18+
2) scrutiny: intermediate - brennan
sex = qausi suspect, regulation must serve imp interest and be substantially relatted
3) result: overturn law, small sats diff dont warrant catgorization, does not properly serve interest (still drink)
Adarand v. Pena (1994)
1) targeted group - majority ethnic contractors. incenticves to hire economically or socially disadvanteged contractors
2) Question: i spresumptin of disadvantage based on race alone and giving preferential treatment aviolation of equal protection
3) Scrutiny: strict. all racial is strict. if based on disadvantage (not just race) lower standards, proof of past injury does not establish present or future injury
4) result: yes, in violation.
San Antonio v. Rodruguez (1973)
1) Texas schools funded partly by incomce tac of surrounding area, poor affected
2) targed gfroup: poor
3) scrutiny: rational basis - poor are large and amorphous class with pol representation, education not fundamental right but very important
4) result - uphold school funding policy
