Equal Protection Clause

Question 1

Plessy v. Ferguson

Answer 1

THEORY

The court held that the separate but equal is constitutional. I.e., they upheld the Jim Crow lawas as constitutional under the 14th amendment.

J, Harlan Dissent

Said that constitution is colorbind.

No longer good law obviously.

Overturned by …

Question 2

Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)

Answer 2

All 9 voted on overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. Eliminated the applicability of Jim Crow laws to schools. (Later this was done to ALL segregating laws.)

Question 3

Brown v. Board of Education II

Answer 3

Allowed schools to resist the Brown holding, “with all deliberate speed.”

Question 4

Korematsu v. United States, U.S. (1944)

Answer 4

SC held that civilian exclusion order which excluded Japanese people in a military area did not violate the 5th amendment EPC (or 14th amendment EPC for states.)

Protecting national security is ALWAYS compelling purpose.

However, KWF says that the law was not narrowly tailored, although the Court said it was.

Really racist cases, similar to Dred Scott.

Question 5

Facial-racial classification

Answer 5

Apply Strict Scrutiny.

Question 6

Loving v. Virginia, U.S. (1967)

Answer 6

SC held that VA state law which banned whites from marrying non-whites violates the EPC.

To advance white supremacy is not a compelling nor even legitimate government purpose.

Question 7

Palmore v. Sidoti, U.S. (1984)

Answer 7

SC held that a law which results in loss of child custody if one were to marry a black man, is unconstitutional.

The law had no apparent purpose aside from maintaining white supremacy.

Question 8

Jane Crow Gender Classifications

Answer 8

Classifications based on gender trigger INTERMEDIATE scrutiny.

Not SS, because classifications between men and women may be appropriate.

Question 9

Reed v. Reed, U.S. (1971)

Answer 9

Not current law

Held law preventing women from being an administrator of an estate as unconstitutional.

They applied RBT, today standard is intermediate scrutiny.

Gender is irrelevant when it comes to who may be an administrator of an estate.

Question 10

Frontiero v. Richardson

Answer 10

Not current law.

THEORY

Frontiero Factors – Help determine if a classification is suspect.

H.I.P.

1. History of purposeful discrimination;
2. Immutable trait;
3. Political Powerless group

Question 11

Craig v. Boren, U.S. (1976)

Answer 11

A DUI law that is classified based on sex is unconstitutional. Here, the OK law prohibited sale of beer to men under 21 and women under 18.

Court applied intermediate scrutiny because it was a facial gender classification .

Remember to pass intermediate scrutiny the law must:

      1. Further an important gov't interest;
      2. Must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.

Question 12

U.S. v. Virginia, (1996) U.S.

Answer 12

This case created an “exceedingly persuasive” justification element to purpose inquiry under intermediate scrutiny.

I.e., in order to justify a gender-based gov’t action, must establish an “exceedingly persuasive justification” AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS PUT IN PLACE, not after.

This was the case where there was an all-male military institution.

Question 13

Orr v. Orr, U.S. (1979)

Answer 13

Held that law which required husbands but not wives to pay alimony as unconstitutional.

Applied intermediate scrutiny.

It was an important gov’t purpose of protecting poor spouses, however, the gender of the spouse is irrelevant in achieving this purpose. (classic example of gender stereotyping.)

Question 14

When to apply SS for laws that could potentially violate the EPC?

Answer 14

If the law classifies:

1. Race (ethnicity & national origin)
2. Alienage (citizenship)

Apply intermediate scrutiny if:
Gender

Question 15

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, U.S. (1949)

Answer 15

The NYC ordinance which stated that you cannot advertise on a vehicle unless your own it and the purpose of the vehicle is substantially related to the type of business it advertises, was found NOT to violate the EPC.

Court applied RBT, because the classification is NOT suspect.

This a great case for the Defense (gov’t) lawyer. Because it demonstrates that it so easy for something to be rationally related to the legitimate gov’t purpose under RBT.

The Lee Optical equivalent for EPC.

Question 16

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, U.S. (1976)

Answer 16

Whether the MA mandatory retirement law, which required police officers to retire at age 50 violates the 14th amendment EPC?

Court held that such an age classification is not a violation.

Court applied RBT, by first having applied Frontiero Factors.

They said although age is an immutable trait, we will all get there at some point so it is not quite immutable.

It also passed the Carolene Products test.

AGE IS NOT A SUSPECT CLASSIFICATION.

Question 17

San Antonio v. Rodriguez, U.S. (1973)

Answer 17

Whether how much money a school gets is based on the property values surrounding the school violates the 14th amendment EPC?

Classification on basis of SES are NON-SUSPECT.

Education is NOT a fundamental right under the constitution.

APPLY RBT TO LAWS THAT CLASSIFY BASED ON SES.

Question 18

City of Cleburne, Tx. v. Cleburne Living Center, U.S. (1985)

Answer 18

Apply RBT to laws effecting the intellectually disabled.

Pretty messed up but this is what it is.

Being mentally challenged is immutable. But apparently they have not been completely politically powerless.

Here, the court applied RBT+ because they said that such a legislation is not a legitimate gov’t purpose.

Remember, for RBT+ ask if the law was based for the bare desire of harming a politically powerless group? (dont be confident though.)

Question 19

Romer v. Evans, U.S. (1996)

Answer 19

Court found that amendment to Colorado law which said that local gov’t cannot pass a law that prohibits discrimination against LGBT as a violation of the EPC. (essentially the amendment wanted to make sure it was okay to discriminate against LGBT.)

The court applied RBT+.

Gov’t Purpose? No, a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legit. gov’t purpose.

Rationally Related? No, do not get here.

This is anomalistic holding. But still good law.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A SUSPECT CLASSIFACTION.

Question 19

Washington v. Davis, U.S. (1976)

Answer 19

NO EXCLUSIONARY PURPOSE.

Court held that a test, testing the intelligence of police officers did not violate the EPC.

Although, the stats. showed black officers did worse on the test that white officers, the law did not have a discriminatory purpose.

I.e., there was a discriminatory effect, but the government was able to show that the purpose was not discriminatory.

On the test, it may be helpful to explain the stats. in order to establish that there was an exclusionary purpose.

Question 20

Palmer v. Thompson, U.S., (1971)

Answer 20

NO EXCLUSIONARY EFFECT

The court held that since they closed the swimming pools which denied all people access to them, in an effort to deny black people access to them, the law did not violate the EPC–because it affected ALL people equally.

If there is no targeted discrimination, it is not a violation of the EPC.

Question 21

Personnel Administrator of MA v. Feeney, U.S., (1979)

Answer 21

Court found that a law which showed a preference for hiring veterans, which in effect enormously helped males, was constitutional.

Court applied RBT.

In order to apply SS, must establish the law was passed for an exclusionary purpose, just proving an exclusionary effect is not enough.

(need to demonstrate law was passed FOR an exclusionary effect, not in spite of it.)

Question 22

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., U.S. (1977)

Answer 22

Court found that a denial to build low and moderate incoming housing did NOT violate the EPC.

THEORY CASE

Created a non-exhaustive list, to help prove an exclusionary purpose.
1. Extreme statistical proof of a disparity
2. Deviation from procedure (whether events leading to decision are sus.)
3. Decision inconsistent w/ typical priorities
4. Legislative or Administrative History
Statements of decision makers

( She does not really care about this list that much. )

Question 23

Geduldig v. Aiello, U.S. (1974)

Answer 23

Court applied RBT when a CA disability program excluded payment of benefits for pregnancy related disability.

They applied RBT, since it is not suspect. They are classifying between PREGNANT and NON-PREGNANT women, nothing to do with gender.

Question 24

Alienage

Answer 24

Alienage, includes laws such as voting, political office, jury service, law enforcement and public school teachers.

If Federal Gov’t using citizenship, then it is RBT.

If states using citizenship, then it is SS unless for self-governance.

Question 25

Califano v. Webster, U.S. (1977)

Answer 25

Court held that a law which computed social security benefits differently from men and women did NOT violate the EPC.

Court applied intermediate scrutiny.

It was intermediate because it was clearly a facial gender classification.

Important gov’t purpose? To reduce disparity in economic conditions between men and women. Further, there was a REAL non-stereotypical difference between how much men and women earned in their lifetime.

Substantially related? Yes, it directly compensated women for the discrimination they had.

TAKEAWAY***, a law MAY HAVE GENDER CLASSIFICATION IF IT IS REDRESSING SOCIETY’S LONG STANDING DISPARATE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.

Question 26

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., U.S. (1989)

Answer 26

Court found that a city plan which required contracting with some minority groups violated the EPC.

Court applied SS, since it was a facial race-based classification.

Compelling purpose? No, remedying history of discrimination found in construction history is not compelling enough, even if there was past discrimination.

Narrowly tailored? Not exactly.

LAW ATTEMPTING TO COMPENSATE FOR GENERAL SOCIETAL DISCRIMINATION IS NOT A COMPELLING GOV’T PURPOSE.