1.6 Equal protection

Equal protection is a fundamental principle in U.S. law, rooted in the 14th Amendment. It prohibits discrimination and ensures fair treatment under the law, shaping civil rights jurisprudence and addressing historical inequalities.

Courts use different levels of scrutiny to evaluate equal protection claims, from strict scrutiny for race-based laws to rational basis for most other classifications. This framework balances individual rights with government interests, evolving to address new forms of discrimination.

Historical background of equal protection

• Equal protection clause emerged as a cornerstone of civil rights law in the United States
• Fundamentally altered the relationship between federal and state governments regarding individual rights
• Continues to shape legal discourse on discrimination and equality in modern jurisprudence

Origins in 14th Amendment

Top images from around the web for Origins in 14th Amendment

• 

  Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Origins in 14th Amendment

• 

  Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Ratified in 1868 as part of Reconstruction Amendments following the Civil War
• Aimed to address racial discrimination and ensure equal rights for newly freed slaves
• Contains the Equal Protection Clause stating "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
• Marked a significant shift in federal power to protect individual rights against state actions

Post-Civil War developments

• Civil Rights Act of 1875 attempted to implement equal protection principles
• Faced resistance and limited enforcement in Southern states
• Supreme Court's narrow interpretation in Civil Rights Cases (1883) restricted federal power
• Jim Crow laws emerged, perpetuating racial segregation despite 14th Amendment guarantees
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld "separate but equal" doctrine, limiting equal protection's scope

Early Supreme Court interpretations

• Initially applied equal protection narrowly, focusing primarily on racial discrimination
• Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) struck down a law excluding Black citizens from juries
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) extended equal protection to non-citizens, addressing discrimination against Chinese immigrants
• Gradually expanded scope to include other forms of discrimination beyond race
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy, marking a turning point in equal protection jurisprudence

Levels of scrutiny

• Developed by the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of laws under equal protection
• Reflect different degrees of judicial review based on the nature of the classification or right affected
• Play a crucial role in determining the outcome of equal protection challenges in U.S. courts

Strict scrutiny standard

• Highest level of scrutiny applied to suspect classifications (race, national origin, religion)
• Government must prove law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest
• Presumption of unconstitutionality places heavy burden on government to justify the law
• Rarely survives strict scrutiny, often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact"
• Applied in cases involving fundamental rights (voting, interstate travel, access to courts)

Intermediate scrutiny standard

• Middle tier of scrutiny applied to quasi-suspect classifications (gender, legitimacy)
• Government must show law is substantially related to an important government interest
• More flexible than strict scrutiny but still requires significant justification
• Developed in Craig v. Boren (1976) for gender-based classifications
• Also applied in some First Amendment cases involving commercial speech

Rational basis test

• Lowest level of scrutiny applied to most other classifications
• Law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest
• High deference to legislative judgments, presumption of constitutionality
• Government action typically survives rational basis review
• Applied to economic regulations, age classifications, and non-fundamental rights
• Occasionally used as "rational basis with bite" in cases like Romer v. Evans (1996)

Protected classes

• Groups specifically identified for protection against discrimination under equal protection laws
• Reflect historical patterns of discrimination and societal recognition of vulnerable populations
• Influence the level of scrutiny applied in equal protection analysis
• Continue to evolve as societal understanding of discrimination changes

Race and national origin

• Subject to strict scrutiny, reflecting the 14th Amendment's original purpose
• Prohibits both overt discrimination and facially neutral laws with discriminatory impact
• Covers all racial and ethnic groups, not just historically disadvantaged minorities
• Includes protections against racial profiling, segregation, and employment discrimination
• Extends to discrimination based on ancestry or place of birth

Gender and sex

• Initially subject to rational basis, now evaluated under intermediate scrutiny
• Covers discrimination against both men and women
• Prohibits gender stereotyping and overly broad generalizations about gender roles
• Includes protections against pregnancy discrimination (Pregnancy Discrimination Act)
• Recent cases have expanded interpretation to cover sexual orientation and gender identity

Religion

• Protected under both Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment's Establishment Clause
• Government actions targeting specific religions subject to strict scrutiny
• Covers both religious belief and practice, including protections for religious minorities
• Balances religious freedom with other constitutional rights and government interests
• Includes protections against religious discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations

Age vs disability

• Age discrimination generally subject to rational basis review
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act provides statutory protections for workers over 40
• Disability discrimination addressed primarily through Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• ADA requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits discrimination in various contexts
• Courts have applied a form of heightened scrutiny to disability discrimination in some cases

Disparate treatment vs disparate impact

• Two primary theories for proving discrimination under equal protection and civil rights laws
• Reflect different ways in which discrimination can manifest in policies and practices
• Crucial distinction in determining the appropriate legal analysis and burden of proof

Intentional discrimination analysis

• Focuses on proving discriminatory intent or purpose behind a law or action
• Requires evidence of deliberate discrimination against a protected class
• Can be demonstrated through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of bias
• Applies strict scrutiny to racial classifications, even if benign or remedial in nature
• Challenging to prove in cases where discrimination is subtle or unconscious

Unintentional discrimination effects

• Addresses facially neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups
• Does not require proof of discriminatory intent, focuses on discriminatory outcomes
• Recognized in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) under Title VII of Civil Rights Act
• Allows challenges to practices that perpetuate historical discrimination
• More commonly applied in statutory contexts than constitutional equal protection claims

Burden of proof considerations

• Disparate treatment cases require plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent
• McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework often used in employment discrimination cases
• Disparate impact cases require plaintiff to show statistical disparity in outcomes
• Defendant can rebut by demonstrating business necessity or job-relatedness of practice
• Plaintiff may still prevail by showing alternative practices with less discriminatory impact

Affirmative action

• Policies and programs designed to benefit underrepresented groups in education and employment
• Controversial application of equal protection principles to address historical discrimination
• Subject to ongoing legal challenges and evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence
• Balances remedial goals against concerns of reverse discrimination

Educational context

• Focuses on increasing diversity in higher education admissions
• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld narrow use of race as one factor in holistic review
• Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) reaffirmed but clarified strict scrutiny standard
• Prohibits racial quotas or point systems based solely on race
• Requires periodic review to ensure continued necessity of race-conscious policies

Employment context

• Addresses underrepresentation in hiring, promotion, and contracting
• Voluntary programs must meet strict scrutiny standard if challenged
• Court-ordered remedies may be imposed to address proven past discrimination
• Executive Order 11246 requires affirmative action plans for federal contractors
• Private employers must navigate Title VII restrictions on preferential treatment

Strict scrutiny application

• Affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling interest
• Diversity in higher education recognized as compelling interest in Grutter
• Remedying specific, identified past discrimination may justify limited use of race
• Programs must consider race-neutral alternatives before adopting race-conscious measures
• Time-limited nature emphasized, with expectation of eventual phase-out

Equal protection in voting rights

• Intersection of equal protection principles with fundamental right to vote
• Addresses various forms of discrimination and barriers in electoral processes
• Involves complex balancing of state interests in election integrity with individual rights
• Subject to both constitutional and statutory protections (Voting Rights Act)

Redistricting and gerrymandering

• Equal protection prohibits intentional racial gerrymandering (Shaw v. Reno, 1993)
• Requires creation of majority-minority districts under certain circumstances
• Partisan gerrymandering claims face higher hurdles after Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
• "One person, one vote" principle requires roughly equal population in legislative districts
• Challenges arise in balancing racial considerations with other redistricting criteria

Voter ID laws

• Subject to equal protection challenges if disproportionately affecting minority voters
• Crawford v. Marion County (2008) upheld Indiana's voter ID law under rational basis
• Subsequent challenges focus on discriminatory intent or undue burdens on voting rights
• Courts consider evidence of disparate impact and availability of free IDs
• Balances state interest in preventing fraud against potential for voter suppression

Voting accessibility issues

• Addresses barriers to voting faced by various groups (disabled, elderly, language minorities)
• Americans with Disabilities Act requires polling place accessibility and accommodations
• Language assistance provisions of Voting Rights Act protect linguistic minorities
• Equal protection challenges to long wait times or inadequate resources in certain precincts
• Includes issues of early voting, mail-in ballots, and polling place closures or relocations

Equal protection in criminal justice

• Addresses systemic disparities and discrimination within the criminal justice system
• Intersects with due process concerns and Eighth Amendment protections
• Challenges deeply entrenched practices and implicit biases in law enforcement and courts
• Ongoing area of litigation and reform efforts in light of racial disparities in outcomes

Selective prosecution

• Prohibits prosecutorial decisions based on race, religion, or other arbitrary classifications
• High bar for proving discriminatory intent in prosecutorial discretion (United States v. Armstrong, 1996)
• Requires evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose
• Challenges in obtaining discovery to prove selective prosecution claims
• Recent focus on racial disparities in drug prosecutions and charging decisions

Jury selection

• Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibits race-based peremptory challenges in jury selection
• Extended to gender-based exclusions in J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
• Three-step process for evaluating Batson challenges to discriminatory jury strikes
• Ongoing issues with pretext and implicit bias in jury selection process
• Efforts to increase jury diversity and representativeness face constitutional hurdles

Sentencing disparities

• Equal protection challenges to racial disparities in sentencing outcomes
• McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) set high bar for proving discriminatory intent in death penalty
• Focus on mandatory minimum sentences and their disparate impact on minority communities
• Recent reforms addressing crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparities
• Consideration of implicit bias and structural racism in sentencing guidelines and practices

State action doctrine

• Limits application of constitutional protections to government actions, not private conduct
• Key principle in determining scope of equal protection and other constitutional rights
• Reflects balance between individual liberties and government responsibility
• Continues to evolve with changing nature of public-private partnerships and services

Public vs private discrimination

• Constitutional equal protection applies only to state actors, not private individuals
• Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes address private discrimination
• State action required for constitutional claims, limiting reach of 14th Amendment
• Challenges in defining state action in era of privatization and public-private partnerships
• Private conduct may become state action if sufficiently entwined with government functions

Exceptions to state action requirement

• Public function exception applies when private entities perform traditional government functions
• Entanglement exception when government significantly involves itself with private conduct
• State compulsion when government coerces or encourages private discriminatory action
• Symbiotic relationship where government and private entity share responsibilities
• Judicial enforcement of private discriminatory agreements (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948)

Recent developments and controversies

• Reflect ongoing evolution of equal protection doctrine in response to societal changes
• Address emerging forms of discrimination and new understandings of equality
• Often involve intersection of equal protection with other constitutional rights
• Subject to intense legal and political debate, shaping future direction of civil rights law

LGBTQ+ rights and equal protection

• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) recognized fundamental right to same-sex marriage
• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) extended Title VII protections to sexual orientation and gender identity
• Ongoing litigation over religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws
• Challenges to transgender rights in education, healthcare, and public accommodations
• Debate over level of scrutiny applicable to sexual orientation and gender identity classifications

Intersectionality in equal protection claims

• Recognizes compounded discrimination faced by individuals with multiple marginalized identities
• Challenges traditional single-axis approach to discrimination analysis
• Emerging in employment discrimination cases involving multiple protected characteristics
• Difficulties in applying existing frameworks to intersectional claims
• Potential for expanding understanding of equal protection to address complex forms of discrimination

Emerging protected classes

• Debates over extending heightened scrutiny to new groups (economic status, education level)
• Consideration of discrimination based on genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act)
• Potential for recognizing discrimination based on physical appearance or weight
• Challenges in defining and limiting new protected classes
• Balancing expansion of protections with concerns about diluting existing categories

Equal protection vs other constitutional rights

• Explores interactions and tensions between equal protection and other constitutional provisions
• Reflects complex balancing of competing rights and interests in constitutional law
• Crucial for understanding comprehensive approach to civil rights and liberties
• Often requires courts to reconcile conflicting constitutional principles

Due process comparison

• Both found in 14th Amendment, often intertwined in legal analysis
• Substantive due process protects fundamental rights not explicitly enumerated
• Procedural due process ensures fair procedures in government actions
• Equal protection focuses on classifications and differential treatment
• Recent cases (Obergefell) blend due process and equal protection reasoning

First Amendment intersections

• Tensions between free speech/religion and anti-discrimination principles
• Cases involving expressive association rights vs. equal protection (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale)
• Balancing religious freedom claims against equal protection in public accommodations
• Consideration of hate speech regulations and campus speech codes
• Intersection of free press rights with equal access to information

Privacy rights considerations

• Right to privacy often derived from substantive due process
• Intersects with equal protection in reproductive rights cases (Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
• LGBTQ+ rights cases involve both privacy and equal protection concerns
• Data privacy issues raise questions of equal protection in surveillance and information gathering
• Balancing individual privacy rights with anti-discrimination enforcement efforts

Remedies for equal protection violations

• Range of legal remedies available to address and rectify constitutional violations
• Reflect courts' power to enforce equal protection guarantees
• Balance need for effective relief with respect for separation of powers
• Ongoing challenges in designing remedies that address systemic discrimination

Injunctive relief

• Court orders prohibiting discriminatory practices or mandating specific actions
• Can include broad institutional reforms (school desegregation orders)
• Preliminary injunctions to prevent immediate harm during litigation
• Permanent injunctions to provide long-term solutions to equal protection violations
• Challenges in monitoring and enforcing complex injunctive relief

Damages and compensation

• Monetary awards to compensate victims of discrimination
• Limited availability against government entities due to sovereign immunity
• Section 1983 claims allow suits against state actors for constitutional violations
• Punitive damages generally not available against government entities
• Challenges in quantifying damages for intangible harms of discrimination

Structural reforms

• Court-ordered changes to policies, practices, or organizational structures
• Aimed at addressing systemic discrimination and preventing future violations
• Can include oversight mechanisms, training programs, or hiring goals
• Consent decrees often used to implement long-term reforms
• Debates over judicial authority to mandate broad institutional changes