Equal Protection of the Laws

Question 1

14th Amendment:

Answer 1

“No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

i) EPC was put into the fourteenth amendment in reaction to slavery and the civil war. The 13th ended slavery and the 15th was about voting. The 14th can be considered a catch all. ii) Much like the DPC, the EPC has been used to encompass more in the context of social and economic legalization than originally intended (EPC was about race in the broader sense).

Question 2

b) Classification: what forms get close judicial scrutiny?

Answer 2

i) Virtually all laws distinguish between or among classes, e.g., conduct, behavior, age, resident status. Not all distinctions amongst people are equal protection issues. (see e.g.,
Williamson - the optician/optometrist distinction okay)
1. Baseline Rule: Rational Basis Reviewif it’s not “patently absurd” then deference goes to the state
a. Permissible for state to deal with only part of a problem
b. Can be under-inclusive (ie a ban that doesn’t target all dangerous dogs, only pit-bulls) or over-inclusive (targets pit-bulls that aren’t dangerous
2. Certain distinctions: Heightened scrutiny
3. State must have a compelling interest
(a) Race is suspect
(b) Gender is suspicious since 1976 (biological distinctions are acceptable)
i Issue: does homosexuality get heightened scrutiny today?
1 Formally, not at all. SCOTUS has avoided the issue largely and in Lawrence decided it as sexual practices in liberty.
ii) Incidental Discrimination
(1) Driver’s license discriminates against people under 16
(2) Calls for Rational Basis test

Question 3

a) Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949)(p.1291) -

Answer 3

NY truck advert discrimination

i) Rule: Rational basis scrutiny: under rational basis just need some relationship between the trait and the mischief trying to be prevented.
(1) Rational basis scrutiny:
(a) The empirical determination by a legislator gets an enormous amount of deference
(b) The relationship does not have to be that close - leave the determination to the court
(i) Earlier commerce clause cases: the determination has a connection to what is regulation and the purpose of the regulation is a question for congress.
(2) The elimination of distraction goal is not served by this, but it is not a constitutional requirement that legislation deal with all of the problem, it can deal with part of a problem as long as the part they deal with is statistically connected with the issue the state wants to deal with.

Question 4

New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)(p.1294):

Answer 4

No push carts in French Quarter younger than 8 years.
i) Rule: Unless a classification trammels fundamental person rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion or alienage, our decisions (1) presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and (2) require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
(1) Trying to preserve charm and that’s okay.
(2) This case might be understood as the equal protection equivalent of Williamson v. Lee
Optical
(a) Shows just how minimal the minimal scrutiny test is and just how irrational the rational basis test can be.