Equal Protection Clause Flashcards
Which of the following is not itself sufficient to trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny on a claim that government action discriminates on the basis of a suspect or quasi-suspect classification?
Discriminatory Effect. The discriminatory effect of governmental action is not enough, standing alone, to trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny. Only intentional discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the mere fact that government action appears to have a discriminatory effect does not show a discriminatory intent.
Facial discrimination is itself sufficient to show the intent needed to make out a prima facie case for improper discrimination. And facial discrimination can be proven even though the classification is not explicit. For example, facial discrimination was found when a bizarrely drawn redistricting electoral map could not be explained in any way other than in terms of establishing a district in which racial minority persons would be the majority in the district.
Likewise, discriminatory application of a law or program to a certain individual or group of individuals is sufficient to show discriminatory intent, even if the program appears to be neutral on its face. The classic example here is a zoning ordinance that prohibits laundries in wooden buildings unless the owner is granted an exception, and exceptions are granted only to majority race members and denied to minority race members.
And, of course, if a discriminatory motive for the government action can be shown, that is sufficient to show the necessary intent. It should be noted, however, that mere statistical evidence that the government action has a discriminatory effect, as indicated by the correct choice above, is not enough to show discriminatory intent or purpose.
_________ is not a suspect classification for equal protection purposes.
Gender is not considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, triggering an intermediate standard of scrutiny in determining whether a government action or law violates equal protection.
Race, national origin, and alienage are the three suspect classifications designated by the Supreme Court as requiring a strict standard of review (strict scrutiny) for a challenge to a government action or law on the basis of equal protection.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, which of the following is a sufficient justification for a government program differentiating on the basis of a person’s race?
A program of minority hiring to correct the effects of past discrimination in hiring by a government agency is permissible. Under the Equal Protection Clause, a government classification based on race is constitutional only if the government can show that the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The Supreme Court has held that remedying past discrimination is a compelling interest and that the type of hiring program described in this choice was necessary to achieve that interest.
A program assigning students to public high schools based on race in order to promote diversity among the student body is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has found that promoting racial diversity in public high schools (or grade schools) is not a compelling government interest, and, as discussed above, race-based discrimination is constitutional only if necessary to achieve a compelling interest. Students can be assigned on the basis of race to remedy past discrimination (remedying past discrimination being a compelling government interest), but merely promoting diversity is not. Note, however, that a different rule applies at the college level. The Supreme Court has accepted that diversity is important enough at the college level to allow schools to take race into account in making enrollment decisions, but it cannot be the predominant factor.
A program laying off white teachers before minority teachers with less seniority, in order to achieve racial balance among the faculty, is unconstitutional. Racial balance is not a compelling interest and a compelling interest is needed to justify racial discrimination-even racial discrimination that favors minorities. A redistricting of legislative boundaries for the purpose of placing racial or ethnic minority voters in the majority is unconstitutional for similar reasons.
In which of the following cases would strict scrutiny of a government action be applied to determine whether the action violates equal protection?
A STATE LAW that denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage is subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if the state proves the discrimination is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Generally, alienage classifications made by states are subject to strict scrutiny. (However, there is an exception where the law is related to participation in the self-government process. Such laws are subject only to the rational basis test.)
A FEDERAL LAW that denies government benefits to an individual based on alienage is not subject to strict scrutiny. Because the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over aliens, federal classifications based on alienage generally are tested under the rational basis test (i.e., valid unless the challenger can prove that the classifications are not rationally related to a legitimate government interest).
A STATE LAW that makes aliens ineligible for public employment in positions that directly affect the self-governing process are not subject to strict scrutiny like other state alienage classifications. Laws relating to the self-governing process are subject only to a rational basis review.
A STATE LAW that penalizes an individual who is an undocumented alien also is not subject to strict scrutiny, because the Supreme Court has not held that undocumented aliens is a suspect classification.
Intending to encourage long-time resident aliens to become American citizens, a state passed a law denying numerous state and municipal jobs to persons who had been resident aliens for longer than 10 years. Those already in the state had to apply for American citizenship within a year after the law took effect. Persons who had acquired resident alien status prior to achieving the age of majority had until age 30 to acquire such status or be automatically disqualified from obtaining such a job. A 40-year-old man who has been a resident alien in the state for 15 years applied for a job as a police emergency response telecommunications expert. He had not filed for citizenship within the one-year grace period.
May the state constitutionally rely on the statute to refuse to hire the man?
The law probably is unconstitutional as applied to the man in question. An equal protection issue is involved. Under the Equal Protection Clause, state classifications based on alienage are subject to strict scrutiny and so must serve a compelling interest to be constitutional. No compelling purpose seems to be present here. Thus, (D) is correct. (A) is incorrect because, although there is an exception from the strict scrutiny standard where a state or local government discriminates against aliens when hiring persons for jobs involving “self-government” processes, the job here (emergency communications for a police department) is a technical position and probably would not be found to be related to the self-government process; in any event, the statute applies to all positions and not just to jobs involving only the self-government process. (B) is incorrect because, although it is true that aliens are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, the law here is still unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, as discussed above, which applies to aliens. (C) is incorrect because the discrimination would be unconstitutional even if it did apply to all aliens equally, as discussed above.
A man was a permanent resident alien of the United States who was awaiting an opportunity to become a citizen. He filed an application to become an instructor in the local public high school but was denied the position solely on the ground that he was not a citizen. The man now brings suit, alleging that his status as a resident alien was not a proper ground for denying him a position as an instructor.
May the state deny a permanent resident alien employment as an instructor in the public high school?
The state’s action would be reviewed under the rational basis standard. Although state classifications based on alienage are generally suspect, a state may reserve a government position for citizens if it is related to self-governance, involves policymaking, or requires exercise of important discretionary power over citizens. In these cases, only a rationality test is used. A public school teacher at the primary and secondary school level performs an important governmental function (e.g., he influences students’ attitudes about government, the political process, citizenship, etc.), and therefore the exclusion of aliens is rationally related to the state’s interest in furthering educational goals. [Ambach v. Norwick (1979)] (C) is, accordingly, incorrect. The principle articulated in (A) is correct, but has no bearing here, where the question is whether a distinction based on alienage is permissible. (D) is true, but irrelevant; the state may deny the man’s application regardless of his ultimate intentions, so long as he remains an alien.
In certain parts of a state, single-family residences had become so expensive that the vast majority of families could no longer afford to buy a home. To alleviate this problem, the legislature enacted statutes creating a housing agency. The agency, organized along the lines of a private corporation, was authorized to act as general contractor and build homes in counties where the average cost of a new home exceeded by 50% the national average cost of a new home, then to sell the homes at the cost of materials and labor to first-time homebuyers. In one medium-sized city in the state, the average cost of a new home exceeded the national average by 15%, while in a nearby large city, the average cost of a new home exceeded the average by 50%. The agency began building and selling homes in the large city, but did not operate in the medium city. About 35% of the population of the medium city is of Armenian ethnicity. A citizen of Armenian heritage brings a class action against the state, seeking to have the agency’s failure to operate in the medium city declared a violation of the right to equal protection of the Armenian citizens of that city.
What fact would be most helpful for the citizen in challenging the statute?
The most helpful fact would be an intent to discriminate. State action that is facially neutral will nevertheless be struck down if it can be shown that it was intended to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and does in fact have that effect. The citizen must show that the legislature selected the specific cost guidelines with full knowledge of the population characteristics in the medium city and with the specific intent to disqualify that city from participation in the program because of its high concentration of Armenians. If he proves that intent, he will prevail, and (C) is accordingly his best argument. (A) would not be as helpful because the state could show a rational basis for not operating in the medium city-that housing costs were not high enough to warrant state intervention-which would suffice to justify different treatment not based upon purposeful discrimination. (B) is not a good answer because the difficulty experienced by Armenian citizens in obtaining housing may have nothing to do with state action and may be experienced by other groups as well. (D) is not the best answer because, while it is arguably some evidence of purposeful discrimination, it does not state it as clearly as (C).
The state police wished to infiltrate a racist organization devoted to the goal of creating an “all white America.” The police decided to create a new undercover position for the person who would infiltrate the racist organization. The pay was substantially better than the salary of ordinary officers. The chief of police invited all white police officers to apply for the undercover position. A plaintiff had been a state police officer for eight years and had received many citations for efficiency, bravery, and public service. However, the plaintiff is black, and the chief refused to even accept his application for the undercover position, even though the plaintiff told the chief that he was very desirous of obtaining the position.
If the plaintiff sues to require the chief to give serious consideration to his application, should the court rule that the chief has acted in a manner in accordance with the principles of the United States Constitution?
The court should rule in favor of the chief. This is one of the very rare situations in which a distinction based on race is likely to be upheld. The government, based on the facts, has a compelling interest in infiltrating the racist group. Due to the nature of the group, a white police officer is obviously necessary for this task. This means the action meets both elements of the strict scrutiny test: the interest is compelling and the means selected are narrowly tailored because no other nondiscriminatory action would work. The increased salary likely reflects the danger of the undercover task, and so is justifiable. (A) is incorrect because the rational basis test is never used for racial discrimination. Strict scrutiny always is employed. (C) is incorrect because even discriminatory conduct is permissible if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and the means selected are narrowly tailored. (D) is incorrect because, based on the facts of the question, the group prohibits association with black persons. Thus, even if there is a slight chance that a black person could win the confidence of the group, the court would still likely hold that the chief had a compelling interest to impose that qualification.
