Equal Protection Clause Flashcards
Framework For Analysis - 5th and 14th Amendments
(1) What is the classification?
(2) What is the level of scrutiny that should be applied?
(3) Does this law satisfy the level of scrutiny?
What are the two ways we draw classifications?
Have to determine how the government is drawing a distinction.
Facial Classification: statute itself makes a distinction between people based on a particular characteristic.
Facially Neutral: the statute itself is facially neutral, but there is a disparate impact or discriminatory effect from the application of the law. Must still prove discriminatory purpose to demonstrate racial or gender classification.
Strict Scrutiny
The statute will be upheld only if it promotes a compelling governmental interest and the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve this interest.
i. The discrimination must be purposeful to trigger strict scrutiny.
ii. Applied to any statute based on a suspect classification or that impairs a fundamental right.
Intermediate Scrutiny
The statute will be upheld if its classification serves an important governmental objective and the law is substantially related to those objectives.
i. Used for discrimination based on gender and discrimination against non-marital children.
Rational Basis Review
The statute will be upheld if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. This is a very deferential standard – almost every classification survives this easy review. Most general economic and social welfare legislation falls within this limited review category. Discrimination based on sexual orientation also falls into this category
Factors Courts Consider in Determining the Level of Scrutiny (Windsor v. US)
a. Whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination.
b. Whether the class has a defining characteristic that frequently bears a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. If the class does not bear a relation to ability to perform or contribute to society, it is more likely to be recognized as suspect.
c. Whether the class exhibits immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group.
d. Whether the class is a minority or politically powerless (discrete and insular)
Justifications for Strict Scrutiny for Racial Classifications (14th Amendment)
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect African Americans from discrimination on the basis of race.
Race is, rarely, if ever, relevant to any legitimate governmental purpose.
Racial classifications violate a fundamental moral norm.
Prejudice against discrete (distinct) and insular minorities (religious, national, and racial) tends to seriously curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities. – The Caroline Products Footnote 4.
Race is an immutable and physical characteristic
The existence of racial classification can be proven in one of two ways
Facially Discriminatory – discrimination on the face of the law; the text of the statute draws a distinction based on race or national origin.
Facially Neutral Laws with Discriminatory Effect – text of the statute is facially neutral, but it has a discriminatory impact or effect on racial minorities. Must still prove discriminatory purpose – anything less (knowledge, recklessness, negligence) is not enough to bring you into an equal protection world!
Strauder V. West Virginia
Facts: Strauder, a black man, was convicted of murder before an all-white jury. A West Virginia statute limited jury service to white males. Strauder claimed that his conviction by a jury chosen pursuant to his statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding: The West Virginia statute at issue clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause. The statute singles out black persons and expressly denies them a right to participate in the administration of the law, as jurors, because of their color.
Korematesu v. United States – First case to apply strict scrutiny!
Facts: A military order issued during WWII provided that all persons of Japanese ancestry be excluded from a military area in CA in order to protect against acts of sabotage and espionage. Those of Japanese ancestry were to report to and temporarily remain in an assembly center.
Holding: The Court, applying strict scrutiny, upheld the military order.
Rationale:
Does the order serve a compelling government interest? YES! The Court held that there was a compelling governmental interest in protecting the pubic safety. Though the court applied strict scrutiny, they deferred to military authority opinion (because time of war) that the Japanese were a danger to the public safety.
Is the statute narrowly tailored to promote the governmental interest? YES! It would be a heavy administrative burden on the military to make individual determinations of Japanese persons who were a threat.
Loving V. Virginia
Facts: Loving, a white man, and Jeter, a black woman, both Virginia residents, were married in DC, pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and were indicted for violating the state’s law banning interracial marriage.
Holding: A state law restricting the freedom to marry on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause. There is patently no legitimate purpose of this legislation independent of invidious racial discrimination
De Jure Segregation
Segregation enforced by law (unconstitutional)
De Facto segregation
Widespread individual preferences lead to segregation (constitutional)
Brown v. Board of Education – De Jure Segregation = Unconstitutional
Facts: African American children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under state laws requiring segregation according to race.
Holding: The segregation of public schools based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause!
The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children in a minority group of equal educational opportunities. This is true even when the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, as the segregation of black and white children in public schools has an intangible, detrimental effect on black children.
Segregation solely based on race generates a feeling of inferiority among black children that may delay the educational and mental development of black children.
The Court does not articulate a level of equal protection scrutiny, though the suggestion was per se invalidity
Remedies for Racial Segregation
Each school district is a separate entity and the court cannot execute control over the district unless there is evidence of purpose discrimination by the district.
If a court finds evidence of purposeful discrimination, it has broad power to impose remedies pursuant to Brown. The scope of the remedy must be congruent and proportional to the scope of the constitutional violation itself (City of Boerne analysis).
The court has the following remedial powers (Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education):
o Gerrymandering - can order the school board to redraw attendance lines
o Racial quotas - can order the school board to reassign students to different schools
o Bussing
Once the court has established that a school district has implemented its equal protection affirmative duty to create a unified school district, the Court will cease to monitor the progress of the school. If the school becomes segregated again, years later, plaintiffs would have to prove purposeful discrimination by the school de novo to obtain a remedy
