Equal Protection Clause (Racial Classifications)

Question 1

Equal Protection Clause Framework Step 1

Answer 1

Step 1: What is the Classification?
Between who and who? (Ex: People who have a degree and people who do not)
The classification will be either facially discriminatory or facially neutral,
If facially discriminatory (obvious) → SS
If it is a facially neutral law, then it must show discriminatory impact and intent.
If no discriminatory impact or no discriminatory intent → RBR

Question 2

Equal Protection Framework Step 2

Answer 2

Step 2: What is the Level of Scrutiny?
rational basis test → must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Government’s objective need not be compelling or important , just legitimate. Burden of proof if on the challenger.
intermediate scrutiny→ the law must be substantially related to achieving an important government purpose. Burden is on the government to show that it has met this standard.
strict scrutiny → the law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. Characteristics to argue higher scrutiny are:
Immutability
Lack of Political Power
History of Discrimination

Question 3

Equal Protection Framework Step 3

Answer 3

Step 3: Does the Govt Action Meet that Level of Scrutiny?
Does the justification for the law meet the ends?
Overinclusive
Under Inclusivity

Question 4

Equal Protection Framework Step 4

Answer 4

Step 4: Protection of Fundamental Rights
Separate way for Equal Protection Claims to come up. If there is a fundamental right → automatically SS (Right to Vote, Marry, Travel, etc).

Question 5

Rational Basis Test

Answer 5

The law will be upheld if it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government interest. The government’s objective need not be compelling or important, just legitimate. However, when the only conceivable rationale for government action is to discriminate against a particular class, the action will not survive rational basis review. (Romer v. Evans). In Romer, the Court ruled that a proposed law that would prohibit the passage of any law to protect members of the LGBT community was unconstitutional because it was motivated by animus

Question 6

Overinclusive

Answer 6

Overinclusiveness is when a law regulates more people than its reasons for enacting. Rational basis review permits a degree of over inclusiveness (comes up in IS and SS too). (Ny Transit Authority v. Beazer).

Question 7

NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer

Answer 7

In the NY Transit Authority, the Court held that a law that excluded methadone users from working for NY City’s transit authority was constitutional. Even though the law was over inclusive and there was substantial difference between methadone users and narcotics users, the law serves general objectives of safety and efficiency.

Question 8

Underinclusive

Answer 8

Underinclusiveness is when a law does not regulate all who are similarly situated. Rational basis review permits a degree of under inclusiveness. The government can address issues one step at a time. There is no requirement to eradicate “all evils of the same genus” at the same time. Note: the concern with under inclusive laws is the government has enacted a law that targets a particular politically powerless group or that exempts those with more political clout.

Question 9

Railway Agency v. New York (1949)

Answer 9

In Railway Express Agency v. New York, the Court upheld a law prohibiting vehicles from displaying advertisements but made an exemption for businesses who had their own advertisements on their vehicles so long as the vehicles were not solely used for ads. The Court held that the law, while underinclusive because the city was claiming traffic safety, could stand because a government can address one issue at a time.
government can address one problem at a time

Question 10

Arbitrary and Unreasonable

Answer 10

A law can be so over- and underinclusive as to be arbitrary and capricious and therefore fail rational basis review. But these instances will be rare. (Moreno). In US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, the court struck down a law that excluded people who lived with unrelated individuals from receiving food stamps. The court held that the law was so arbitrary and unreasonable that it fails rational basis review.

Question 11

Rational Basis with Bite, or Rational Basis Plus

Answer 11

No black letter law for Rational Basis with Bite. However, the Court applies a higher standard of rational basis when it suspects animus towards a class of people (same sex, disability) without applying a higher level of scrutiny.

Question 12

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

Answer 12

For example, In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, the Court struck down a city’s denial of a permit for the building of a group home for individuals with mental disability because it found no rational basis to require a permit for a group home but not require one for other types of shared living situations. The Court declined to rule that people with mental disabilities are a suspect class and applied rational basis review.

Question 13

If Racial Classification

Answer 13

The equal protection states that “no state shall make or enforce any law that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. The equal protection clause is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any law that curtails the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect and fall under strict scrutiny but they are not per se unconstitutional. (Korematsu). There are two types of racial classifications: facial or neutral. The three types of facial classifications are: (1) that discriminate against people of color, (2) those that discriminate against people of color and white people equally, and (3) those that privilege people of color. If the classification is neutral, then it must prove both a disparate impact and a discriminatory purpose. If either cannot be shown, then the law will be evaluated under rational basis review.

Question 14

Facial Race-Based Classifications that Discriminate Against POC

Answer 14

Any law that curtails the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect and fall under strict scrutiny but they are not per se unconstitutional. (Korematsu). Under strict scrutiny, the law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose.

Question 15

If Racial Classification is Facially Discriminatory but Treats white people “Equally”

Answer 15

Some examples of laws like this are seen in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) and Loving v. Virginia. In Brown, the court held that racially segregated schools were inherently unequal. In Loving, the Court held that a law prohibiting interracial marriage was unconstitutional and motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Question 16

Remedies for School Desegregation

Answer 16

Brown I desegregated schools but left open the question of remedies. Brown II held that school desegregation must occur with “all deliberate speed”.

Question 17

Types of School Remedies Allowed

Answer 17

Racial quotas may be used. There is no per se rule against single race schools, but they are presumptively disfavored. Remedial altering of attendance zones is permitted as an interim measure, and school busing is also allowed. (Swann). Multi-district remedies are allowed when (i) multi-district policies fostered discrimination or (ii) state law caused the interdistrict violation (Milliken).

Question 18

Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

Answer 18

Facts: The CM school system remains very racially segregated even years after Brown II. The district Court imposes various remedies. The question is what powers the school districts and lower courts should use to remedy segregation in schools.
Holding: The Supreme Court upholds the district’s plan (see BLL above)

Question 19

Milliken v. Bradley

Answer 19

Facts: Roughly ⅔ of the children in the Detroit schools are black students, and the schools within the district are highly segregated. Around 98% of the children in the surrounding three suburban counties are white. Parents of Black schoolchildren in Detroit bring lawsuits and the lower courts order integration efforts between the Detroit school districts of the surrounding 3 counties.
Holding: Interdistrict busing is only permissible to remedy racially discriminatory school district decisions that have been a “substantial cause” of interdistrict segregation.

Question 20

If remedies are challenged as a racial classification

Answer 20

Strict Scrutiny applies when an effort by a school district to integrate schools is being challenged as a racial classification. For such efforts to survive, the school district must show that there was a race-neutral alternative (Parents Involved).

Question 21

Parents Involved v. Seattle School District

Answer 21

Facts: Seattle and Louisville KY school districts adopt plans that use race as a deciding factor in assigning students so as to achieve integration.
Holding: The district’s plans are unconstitutional. The districts failed to show that there was no race-neutral alternative, and a plurality finds that achieving diversity is not a compelling interest.

Question 22

If challenges to unequal school funding

Answer 22

There is not a fundamental right to education under the Equal Protection Clause. Challenges based on unequal school funding receive rational basis review. (San Antonio Independent School District).

Question 23

San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez

Answer 23

Facts: Texas has a system of financing public schools through property taxes, which imposes a higher tax burden on poor communities and also leads to an unequal distribution of resources. The financing system is challenged on equal protection grounds.
Holding: The financing system is constitutional.

Question 24

Laws that Benefit People of Color

Answer 24

Affirmative Action

Question 25

Permissible Government Justifications for Affirmative Action

Answer 25

Remedying specific past discrimination by issuing a remedial order directed at the violator (Students for Fair Admissions)

Question 26

Impermissible Government Justifications for Affirmative Action

Answer 26

Remedying unspecific or societal discrimination, maintaining classroom diversity, ensuring diverse role models, increasing healthcare in communities of color

Question 27

Controlling Law Rule for Affirmative Action

Answer 27

An example of a type of law that benefits people of color is affirmative action. The controlling law for affirmative action is now Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC. Under Students for Fair Admissions, colleges and universities can only consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination or otherwise but cannot use race along as a factor in college admissions. The only permissible government justification for affirmative action is remedying a specific past discrimination by issuing a remedial order directed at the violator. (Students for Fair Admissions).

Question 28

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023):

Answer 28

Facts: Harvard and UNC consider race as one factor in a holistic individualized admissions decision. The group SFA challenges the consideration of race in admissions decisions as a violation of EPC.
Holding: Both Harvard and UNC admissions programs violate the EPC.
Black Letter Law: Maintaining classroom diversity is not a compelling government interest sufficient to survive strict scrutiny. Grutter is overruled. However, schools may still consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

Question 29

Richmond v. J.A. Croson (1989)

Answer 29

Facts: The Richmond City Council adopts a plan that requires prime contractors to spend 30 percent of the contract funds on minority owned subcontracts. A contractor alleges that they are being required to pay subcontractors more than market value to meet the 30 percent threshold, and therefore the plan violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Holding: The plan violated Equal Protection.
Black Letter Law: Government classifications on the basis of race intended to benefit racial minorities are subject to strict scrutiny review.

Question 30

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Answer 30

Facts: The University of Michigan Law School Considers a range of factors when making an admissions decision, including race. It has no quota system, but gives “substantial weight” to an applicant’s race. A white applicant who was rejected challenges the policy as a violation of the EPC.
Holding: The school’s policy does not violate Equal Protection.
Black Letter Law: Attaining educational diversity is a compelling state interest, and a public school may consider race alongside a variety of other factors.

Question 31

Fisher v. UT Austin- Fisher II (2016)

Answer 31

Facts: UT Austin considers race as a “factor of a factor of a factor” in its holistic-review calculus when making admissions decisions. A white Texas resident who is denied admission to UT Austin in 2008 challenges the admissions policy as a violation of the EPC.
Holding: The university admissions policy does not violate EPC.
Black Letter Law: The case offers an example of the application of the rule in Fisher I that a university must demonstrate that no race neutral alternative to affirmative action admissions programs exist.

Question 32

University of CA v. Bakke (1978)

Answer 32

Facts: UC Davis med school has a two track admission system: one for minority and disadvantaged applicants and the other for all applicants. The first track had a lower GPA cut off and a specific number of seats set aside for admissions. This gets challenged on equal protection grounds.
Holding: The admission system is impermissible.
Black Letter Law: (1) Race may be considered as one factor in admissions decisions. (2) Achieving diversity is a compelling government interest for the purpose of strict scrutiny, but remedying past discrimination is not. (3) There is no consensus on the level of scrutiny to apply.

Question 33

Permissible Government Techniques

Answer 33

(1) Considering applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination or otherwise, (2) considering race for incarcerated people for temporary reasons to preserve life and safety

Question 34

Impermissible Techniques for Affirmative Action

Answer 34

Using race alone as a factor in government decision making, set asides, racial quotas, adding points to an applicant’s admissions scores based on race

Question 35

Fisher v. UT Austin (Fisher I)

Answer 35

Facts: UT Austin considers race as a “factor of a factor of a factor” in its holistic-review calculus when making admissions decisions. A white Texas resident who is denied admission to UT Austin in 2008 challenges the admissions policy as a violation of the EPC.
Holding: The Court announces new rule and remands to lower court for further consideration
Black Letter Law: To survive strict scrutiny and demonstrate that an affirmative action policy is narrowly tailored, a university must demonstrate that there is no workable race-neutral alternative that could achieve diversity.

Question 36

Gratz v. Bollinger

Answer 36

Facts: The University of Michigan admits undergrad students through a point system. The max number of points awarded is 150. Applicants who are members of historically discriminated racial groups receive 20 points. The admissions process is challenged on EPC.
Holding: The school’s admissions process violates Equal Protection.
Black Letter Law: Admissions policies that give automatic privileges to applicants on the basis of race are not narrowly tailored and do not survive ss.

Question 37

If Facially Neutral Law

Answer 37

For government actions that are facially neutral with regard to race, a challenger must demonstrate both discriminatory impact and discriminatory purpose in order to prove a racial classification (Davis). Statistical evidence alone is not sufficient to show society-wide discriminatory intent (McCleskey).

Question 38

Trying to prove a discriminatory purpose:

Answer 38

Washington v. Davis, McCleskey v. Kemp , and City of Mobile v. Bolden

Question 39

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Answer 39

In Davis, the Court held that an aptitute test for applicants trying to joint the Washington DC police force did not violate the equal protection clause. There was no discriminatory purpose because the test was given to everyone. There was no discriminatory impact because white people also failed the test.

Question 40

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Answer 40

In McClekskey, the Court found that there was no discriminatory purpose of the Georgia death penalty statutory scheme. The Balldus study featuring statistical evidence was not enough to show discriminatory purpose. McCleskely would have to show that specific people in his case acted with discriminatory intent (jury, prosecutor, judge).

Question 41

City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)–> discriminatory impact but NO discriminatory purpose.

Answer 41

In City of Mobile v. Bolden, the Court found that Mobile’s elections for the city commission did not violate the equal protection clause and did not have a disccriminatory purpose. The Court held that just because black candidates have been defeated in the elctorical process, does not show purposeful discrimination. Historical evidence of past discrimination is not enough.

Question 42

Rule For Proving Discriminatory Purpose→

Answer 42

In order to show discriminatory purpose, it is not sufficient to show that the decisionmaker was merely aware of the discriminatory consequences of an act. A challenger must show that the decision maker adopted a particular course of action at least in part because of- not in spite of- the discriminatory effects or impacts. (Feeney). In order to demonstrate a discriminatory purpose, the reviewing Court should look to: (1) Whether there is a clear pattern unexplainable on the grounds other than race” (2) the historical background of the decision”, (3) departures from normal procedures, (4) substantive departures (5) legislative or administrative history (Village of Arlington Heights).In order to demonstrate a discriminatory purpose, the reviewing Court should look to: (1) Whether there is a clear pattern unexplainable on the grounds other than race” (2) the historical background of the decision”, (3) departures from normal procedures, (4) substantive departures (5) legislative or administrative history (Village of Arlington Heights).

Question 43

Palmer v. Thompson (1971)–> discriminatory purpose maybe but declines to decide which reason was determinative

Answer 43

Facts: The City of Jackson had 5 public swimming pools segregated by race. Rather than integrate the pools, the city decided to close them altogether. The decision to close all the city pools is challenged on equal protection grounds.
Holding: The decision to close all city pools was not an equal protection violation. There is some evidence to support the argument that the pools were closed because of racial motivations. However there is more evidence that the pools were closed because the city thought they could not be operated “safely and economically on an integrated basis. Court does not know which reason is the “sole or dominant one” and declines to decide. There is no evidence of discriminatory impact since the pools are also closed to white peopl

Question 44

Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979)

Answer 44

Facts: MA has a law that says that veterans who apply for civil service jobs must be given preference over non-veterans. Because the overwhelming majority of veterans are males (98% of the veterans in MA are male and only 1.8% are female despite ¼ of MA residents being veterans), the law operates to the overwhelming benefit of male applicants over female applicants. The law is challenged as an impermissible gender classification.
Holding: The law is not an impermissible gender classification since the benefit is for ANY veteran which includes women.

Question 45

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp

Answer 45

Facts: A developer applies to the Village of Arlington to rezone a 15-acre parcel of land from a single family to multi-family use. The Village denies the application. The developer challenges the denial under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Holding: The permit denial does not violate the equal protection clause. No evidence of any of the other factors that would spark suspicion of racial discrimination since the areas around property has been zoned for single family homes since the city’s beginning, rezoning process progressed according to regular procedure, no departures, and Plan commission even scheduled two additional hearings to accommodate the respondents.

Question 46

Discriminatory Uses of Peremptory Challenges for a Jury

Answer 46

(1) The challenger must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) The prosecution must offer a race neutral explanation; (3) The court must determine whether the explanation is legitimate. (Batson v. Kentucky). A prosecutor’s legitimate reason must only be race-neutral. It does not necessarily need to be persuasive or even reasonable (Purkett v. Elem). Batson applies to gender-based challenges as well (J.E.B v Alabama).