Equal Protection & Fundamental Rights

Question 1

Equal Protection

Answer 1

similarly situated people are treated similarly
-does NOT mean you treat people the same
-Gov cannot arbitrarily irrationally or impermissibly classify
-an EP claim must involve some classification made by the statute

Question 2

In order for a statute to violate EP

Answer 2

the differential treatment of classes is INTENTIONAL (de jure)
-if its just an unintended effect of the statute, not an EP violation (de facto)

Question 3

Railway Express Agency v. NY

Answer 3

NY statute allowed trucks to advertise their own products but prohibited advertising other companies
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Gov’t had a legitimate purpose and means are rationally related

Question 4

In classification cases, use EP before DP

Answer 4

because if its an EP issue, the statute can be amended and fixed, if its a DP issue, the gov’t cant do anything

Question 5

Strauder v. West Virginia

Answer 5

West Virginia statute limited jury service to white males above 21 years old
HOLDING: Unconstitutional on its face
REASONING: a state may not prevent people from serving on a jury; any classification of jurors by race is unconstitutional

Question 6

Hernandez v. Texas

Answer 6

Hernandez convicted of murder, appealed b/c people of Mexican weren’t able to serve on a jury
HOLDING: violation of EP as applied
REASONING: Mexicans are a separate class from whites that are a discrete and insular minority; discriminatory b/c statistics are so substantial. Doesn’t have a right to Mexican Americans on his jury, but has a right to have them not excluded from the process.

Question 7

Yick Wo v. Hopkins

Answer 7

SF ordinance prevents wooden laundromats unless you have a license; licenses had been denied to all chinese-american applicants but only 1 non-chinese applicant was denied
HOLDING: Unconstitutional as applied (not on its face b/c statute itself is fine)
REASONING: Used reasonable basis b/c on its face constitutional; statute was intended to reduce the risk of fire; however, the court also noted that only Chinese laundries were affected by the statute. The court concluded the statute was intended to reduce Chinese laundries rather than the risk of fire
“with an evil eye and an unequal hand”

Question 8

Plessy v. Ferguson (OVERRULED)

Answer 8

Louisiana statute provided for separate but equal train cars for black and white Americans
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: if equal, there is no inferiority

Question 9

Korematsu v. United States (OVERRULED)

Answer 9

Japanese-Americans were ordered to be moved to internment camps during WWII
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: used strict scrutiny, but found it to be constitutional because of the public necessity

Question 10

Brown v. Board 1

Answer 10

overruled separate but equal from plessy
-African Americans denied entry to public schools b/c of their race
HOLDING: Unconstitutional; violation of EP
REASONING: Even though tangible factors may seem equal, they aren’t; existence of segregation has profound effects on hearts and minds of children

Important b/c applied to amphitheaters, beaches, municipal golf courses, buses, public parks, athletic contests, airport restaurants, courtroom seating, auditoriums, etc.

Question 11

Bolling v. Sharpe

Answer 11

racial segregation in DC public schools (so 5th amendment b/c federal)
HOLDING: Unconstitutional violation of due process of 5th amendment
REASONING: even though 14th amendment only applies to states and not DC, “liberty” under the 5th amendment may not be restricted except to pursue a legit gov. interest
-rationally, if states cannot discriminate in public education, neither can the federal gov (reverse incorporation)

Question 12

Brown v. Board 2

Answer 12

In its original decision, Brown v. Board ruled racial discrimination in public education was unconstitutional but did not provide a remedy or specific requirements imposed on public schools for desegregation
HOLDING: cases are remanded to lower courts to make decisions consistent w/ Brown v Board 1 ruling; requires prompt and reasonable start towards desegregation

Question 13

All deliberate speed

Answer 13

Defendants must make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance; have burden to show additional time needed in public interest and consistent with good faith compliance at earliest date.

Question 14

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Answer 14

If a district has a history of segregation, it should use all the techniques it once used to segregate in order to desegregate
-a one race school isn’t necessarily proof of segregation but raises a presumption

Question 15

Washington v. Davis

Answer 15

Davis alleged the Washington DC police dept used racially discriminatory hiring practices by using a verbal skills test that African Americans disproportionally failed
HOLDING: Constitutional; no violation of EP
REASONING: Mere instance of disproportional impact does not trigger strict scrutiny, the policy must be a de jure violation strict scrutiny.
- the test itself is neutral on its face and is administered to all applicants; necessary to see if applicant have the verbal skills required to be an officer
-disproportionate impact is a factor to consider, but does not mean its a violation of EP

Question 16

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

Answer 16

MHDC applied for a permit to rezone parcel of land for racially-integrated complex for lower-income tenants, was denied
HOLDING: MHDC failed their burden of proof that discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in Village’s denial of the permit
REASONING: must demonstrate both that the law is motivated by a discriminatory purpose and has a discriminatory impact

Question 17

Affirmative Action

Answer 17

Action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation or employment or education
-allowed in universities but NOT required
all racial classifications analyzed under strict scrutiny

Question 18

When is affirmative action unconstitutional?

Answer 18

-When a university uses a quota system based on a suspect class
-When the sole purpose is to achieve racial balance
-When the university identifies a targeted group and favors disadvantaged students
(race can be A factor in admissions, but can NOT be the ONLY factor)

Question 19

When is affirmative action constitutional?

Answer 19

-No quotas
-race is a factor but not the only one
-A student’s entire application is reviewed
- purpose is for diversity
- individualized, holistic approach
- all students given opportunity to compete for the seats
- giving weight to diversity factors besides race

Question 20

Strict Scrutiny (in race)

Answer 20

Any racial classification imposed by federal, state, or local governments is analyzed under strict scrutiny
- for a racial classification under SS to be valid, the government must demonstrate that its use of race in its admissions program employs “narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests.”
_only 2 compelling reasons for school district to use reverse racism: 1. remedy of past discrimination; 2. diversity in higher education

Question 21

Quotas

Answer 21

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- virtually all racially-based quotas will be struck down even where the government is trying to eradicate the effects of past discrimination – the Court will probably say that a quota is not “necessary” to remedy discrimination, because more flexible “goals” can do the job.

Question 22

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Answer 22

Quota used for racial minority groups in entrance to medical school; Bakke denied admission even though other applicants with worse scores/grades were admitted under this policy
HOLDING: Unconstitutional
REASONING: Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a public university may not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions policies even when doing so benefits members of minority races, and all such discriminatory racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny.
-The EPC is equally applicable to both minorities and the white majority, and preference of one group over another solely b/c of race is facially invalid.

Question 23

Gratz v. Bollinger

Answer 23

Caucasian plaintiffs applied for admission to a University and were denied. University policy ranked applicants on a 150-point scale that accorded different point values to factors such as grade point average, test results, and personal achievements. However, an applicant automatically received twenty bonus points if he or she was a member of an underrepresented minority group, attended a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or was recruited for athletics.
HOLDING: Unconstitutional
REASONING: The University’s use of race in its admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve the University’s asserted compelling interest in diversity.
-The state may not play one racial group against another; automatic preference on the basis of race is a violation of EP

Question 24

Grutter v. Bollinger

Answer 24

UMich Law School gave substantial weight to diversity of applicants; White plaintiff was denied admission
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Student body diversity is a compelling state interest
-narrowly tailored means and NO QUOTA used
-race is Considered, but not determinative

Question 25

Adarand Constructions v. Pena

Answer 25

Federal government said it would give extra compensation to its contractor if it hired subcontractors controlled by minorities. Preference was given to minority-owned subcontractors on federal highway construction projects over non-minorities who had submitted lower bids.
HOLDING: must use strict scrutiny for federal gov’t classification on race
REASONING: the Federal gov’t cant be held to a lesser standard than states

Question 26

General propositions with respect to gov’t classifications of race

Answer 26

1. Skepticism – “any preference based on racial or ethnic criteria must necessarily receive a most searching examination” = strict scrutiny
2. Consistency – “the standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefitted by a particular classification” = each race gets same benefit – Brown = Bakke
3. Congruence – “equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment” = same standard for federal and state

Question 27

General rule concerning classification of aliens

Answer 27

strict scrutiny when gov’t discriminates
EXCEPT: if the alien is applying for a government job, and the performance of this job is closely tied in with politics, justice or public policy, we use only “mere rationality” review

Question 28

Illegal Aliens

Answer 28

NOT a suspect class, no strict scrutiny only rational review

Question 29

Legal Aliens

Answer 29

Suspect class; follows general rule of strict scrutiny with exceptions

Question 30

Alien v. National Origin

Answer 30

• if a person is discriminated against because he is not yet a United States citizen, that’s “alienage” discrimination.
• If he’s discriminated against because he is a naturalized citizen who originally came from Mexico (or whose ancestors came from Mexico), that’s discrimination based on “national origin.”

****Remember that national origin always triggers strict scrutiny, whereas alienage does not necessarily do so.

Question 31

Ambach v. Norwick

Answer 31

Statute doesnt allow employment in secondary and elementary schools for aliens who are eligible for United States citizenship but refuse to seek naturalization.
HOLDING: Constitutional; use rational review
REASONING: Although Alienage is a “Suspect classification,” the level of scrutiny usually required (SS) is lessened (RR) when governmental function relating to the performance of basic government functions are involved.

Question 32

Plyler v. Doe

Answer 32

Texas amended its education laws to withhold state funds for the education of children not legally admitted into the country. It also authorized school districts to refuse to enroll children not legally admitted into the country
HOLDING: Unconstitutional violation of EP
REASONING: Children of immigrants did not choose to enter the country unlawfully, and depriving them of education will contribute to a large disenfranchised underclass of undocumented aliens; no state goal is substantial enough to validate this discrimination

Question 33

Intermediate Scrutiny

Answer 33

Public education is not a federal constitutional right or fundamental right; Illegal aliens are not a suspect class; basically rational review “with teeth”

Question 34

Federal regulation of alienage is subject to

Answer 34

Rational Review; Because Congress has broad power to determine naturalization and immigration procedures, it has the power to make rules affecting aliens that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens.

Question 35

Matthews v. Diaz

Answer 35

Congress enacted a federal medical insurance program that permitted participation of aliens who had lived in the US for five years or more and had been admitted for permanent residency. HOLDING: Constiutional; federal gov’t has broad powers to regulate immigration and naturalization.

Question 36

State regulation of aliens subject to

Answer 36

STRICT SCRUTINY

Question 37

Illegitimate child

Answer 37

child of unmarried parents; semi-suspect class; triggers intermediate scrutiny

Question 38

Lalli v. Lalli

Answer 38

P is the illegitimate child of father, who died without a will. During fathers life, no legitimate recognition of P so under NY law, P was not recognized as father’s legal heir and barred from inheritance rights since there was no recognization of parentage during father’s lifetime
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Statute is substantially related to am important state interest; establishing paternity is much harder than maternity and protects against suspicious claims of paternity

Question 39

Gender-Based Discrimination triggers

Answer 39

INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY

Question 40

Frontiero v. Richardson (OVERRULED)

Answer 40

Statute provided that a serviceman could claim his wife as a dependent without regard to whether she is in fact a dependent, while a servicewoman can only claim her husband as dependent if she demonstrates that he is actually dependent on her for over one-half of his support.
HOLDING: Unconstitutional
REASONING: Use strict scrutiny

Question 41

Craig v. Boren

Answer 41

Oklahoma statute prohibited the sale of “non-intoxicating” 3.2 percent alcoholic beer to males under the age of twenty-one, but permitted the sale of such beer to females over the age of eighteen.
HOLDING: Unconstitutional
REASONING: The classification must be substantially related to the achievement of an important government purpose; Purpose is an important gov’t interest, but the means are not substantially related

Question 42

No gender discrimination if

Answer 42

there is discrimination against a group that is made up of men and women

Question 43

Personnel Administration of Massachusetts v. Feenry

Answer 43

State statute granted veterans a preference in civil service employment
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: The statute was not a distinction between men and women. It was a facially neutral distinction between vets (male & female) and non-vets (male & female).

Question 44

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan

Answer 44

Man wants to attend nursing school but was denied b/c it was an all-female program
HOLDING: Unconstitutional violation of EP
REASONING: Mississippi does not have an important purpose for the MUW admissions policy.
-A state can use the purpose of compensating for past discrimination against a gender group only if the members of the gender that benefit from the compensation was actually disadvantaged in a way related to the gender discrimination, but in this case females were the majority of nurses

Question 45

Wealth triggers

Answer 45

RATIONAL REVIEW

-its a non-suspect class because it can be changed

Question 46

Age triggers

Answer 46

RATIONAL REVIEW

-non-suspect class b/c everyone gets old

Question 47

Mentally Retarded triggers

Answer 47

RATIONAL REVIEW

Question 48

Dandridge v. Williams

Answer 48

State welfare program sets max benefit limits per month
HOLDING: Constitutional
REASONING: Use RR; Legitimate state purpose is to encourage family planning and gainful employment

Question 49

San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez

Answer 49

People in the minority neighborhood paid higher taxes than people in the white neighborhood, but more money was allocated per pupil in the white neighborhood. Suit was brought claiming the dual system and financial disparity denied them equal protection
HOLDING: Constitutional because education is NOT a fundamental right, so RR is used
REASONING: The Poor are not a suspect class! People move in and out of poverty (unlike gender, race…) Poverty may be a disadvantage, but it is diff than race or gender (immutable characteristics);

Question 50

Triggers for Strict Scrutiny

Answer 50

Suspect classification (race) OR
Fundamental rights violation

Question 51

Access to Courts is a

Answer 51

fundamental right (SS)

Question 52

Griffin v. Illinois

Answer 52

Griffin was denied access to free transcripts from his trial court conviction for his appeal
HOLDING: Unconstitutional
REASONING: A statute that denies access to appellate review to those who cannot afford it while allowing appellate review to those who can afford it amounts to unconstitutional discrimination; There is no rational relationship between a defendant’s ability to pay the costs of an appeal and the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Question 53

Douglas v. California

Answer 53

An indigent defendant has a right to have counsel appointed during an appeal as a matter of right
- There is no Constitutional right to appellate review, but once a state grants that right they must ensure equal access

Use SS because access to courts is a fundamental right, even though wealth is RR