What does the Equal Protection Clause protect?

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as other people in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The clause is not intended to provide equality among individuals or classes but only equal application of the law. The result of a law, therefore, is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application.

By denying states the ability to discriminate, the Equal Protection Clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights. The Equal Protection Clause has served as the basis of Supreme Court decisions defining the scope of the rights enjoyed by different groups of citizens. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court held that the notion of “separate but equal” facilities and treatment for Black students in public education violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection to all citizens. Similarly, in Obergell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

Generally, the question of whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court finds a classification constitutional if it has a “rational basis” to serve a “legitimate state purpose.” The Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will “strictly scrutinize” a distinction when it embodies a “suspect classification.” In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate based on race, religion, national origin or, in some situations, citizenship. In order for a classification permissible, the state must prove that it has a compelling interest and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. In practice, discriminatory laws based on race, national origin, or religion are almost always unconstitutional except in rare situations involving national security or affirmative action.The Court also applies the strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights, such as First Amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel.

The Court requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strict-scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender, sexual orientation, or a child’s status as illegitimate. This mid-level scrutiny is sometimes referred to as “heightened” or “intermediate” scrutiny.

Laws that discriminate on the basis of age, disability, wealth, political preference, or status as a felon are subject only to rational-basis review.

The 14th Amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Today’s rational basis review is not quite the same as that discussed above. Rational basis review, in its current form, asks whether

“there is some rational relationship between disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.”

Central State University v. American Assoc. of University Professors, 526 U.S. 124, 128 (1999), citingHeller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-321 (1993). If this sounds familiar it is because the same standard is used in substantive due process cases where non-fundamental rights are at stake. There is a presumption of constitutionality and “the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negate every conceivable basis which might support it.”Heller at 321.

Just how far does this assumption of constitutionality go? The Court in Heller also pointed out that a state need not produce any evidence demonstrating the rationality of the classification at issue, and that when a law is passed, the legislature does not even need to articulate any purpose or rationale supporting the classification. In other words, a state can pass a law which treats different classes differently, and so long as the class is such that the law is subjected to rational basis review only, any conceivable rational basis for drawing the classification, even if it wasn’t the actual basis for the law, will suffice to pass muster under this test.

EXAMPLE: New Ridgefield, Connecticut, is an up-and-coming, bustling small city. Traffic accidents are on the rise, in part because of the high number of private automobiles which carry advertising signs for various services and products. In an effort to reduce traffic accidents, a law is passed banning advertisements on private vehicles except for services or products offered by the owner of that vehicle. Assume that rational basis review will apply. Under that standard, the law seems rationally related to the intent of reducing accidents. The fact that the law does not go further and ban all advertisements is not sufficient to strike it down under the Equal Protection Clause. SeeRailway Express Agency v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949).

EXAMPLE: Westernstate passes a law requiring that all automobiles initially purchased or initially registered in that state after February 1, 2014, pass certain rigorous emissions tests. Cars initially purchased and initially registered prior to that date need only meet the current emissions standards, even if subsequently purchased or registered by a new owner at some point after February 1, 2014. Because this law is rationally related to achieving a conceivable legitimate government purpose (e.g., reducing harmful emissions) it will withstand an Equal Protection claim even if no government purpose was enunciated when the law was passed.

Although a state need not provide a stated purpose when passing a law, there must be some conceivable legitimate purpose to which the law could be rationally related in order to pass the rational basis test. In determining whether there exists such a legitimate goal, courts will grant great latitude and deference to the legislature.

EXAMPLE: Southernstate passes a law which taxes out-of-state insurance companies at a rate higher than that applied to Southernstate insurance companies. The legislative history indicates that the law was intended to “foster and lend support to the insurance industry here in Southernstate, which has done so very much for our citizens over the years and has of late struggled to compete with larger, out-of-state companies.” Unfortunately, this is one situation in which even the relatively weak rational basis test will lead a court to strike down the law, as promoting a home-state business by discriminating against out-of-state competitors is not a legitimate state goal, and the law’s rational relation to that goal is therefore irrelevant. SeeMetropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (1985).

Intermediate Scrutiny

For a number of years, all Equal Protection cases were subject either to rational basis review or to strict scrutiny. Beginning with the Burger Court, however, the notion of "intermediate scrutiny" began to develop. InClark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988), the Court ruled that to “withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.” So the relation to the objective must be more than merely non-arbitrary or rational – it must be substantial – and the objective itself must be more than merely valid or permissible – it must be important.

EXAMPLE: Westernstate has a law which requires that a paternity suit be brought, if at all, within 5 years of the birth of the child. The statute of limitations is intended to prevent Westernstate from wasting resources on fraudulent or stale claims. Such a law would not pass the application of intermediate scrutiny, as the five-year period is not substantially related to the state purpose.

Rational basis review is applied to all non-suspect classes, and, as mentioned above and discussed in more detail below, strict scrutiny is applied to suspect classes and laws burdening fundamental rights. What, then, remains to be subjected to intermediate scrutiny? Intermediate scrutiny applies to what are sometimes referred to as "quasi-suspect" classifications, which have been applied to discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. Unlike with rational basis review, the state objectives for the discriminatory laws subjected to intermediate scrutiny

“must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigations” and the justification offered by the state must be “exceedingly persuasive,”

The highly respected Second Circuit recently summarized this level of scrutiny well:

“Intermediate scrutiny typically is used to review laws that employ quasi-suspect classifications…such as gender…or legitimacy…. On occasion intermediate scrutiny has been applied to review a law that affects ‘an important though not constitutional right.’”

Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 331 F. 3d 315, 321 (2d. Cir. 2003). Laws relating to gender or alienage, along with other “important, but not constitutional rights,” will be subjected to this middle level scrutiny.

EXAMPLE: Southernstate Military University has a long-standing tradition of excellence in educating young minds and turning them into leaders as civilians and soldiers. It also has a long-standing tradition of doing so only if those young minds happen to come in male bodies – women are not admitted to this public institution. Despite their one hundred and fifty year tradition, unless the school can provide some “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the gender-based discriminatory policy, it will not pass the intermediate scrutiny Equal Protection review to be applied in such cases. SeeUnited States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)(“the VMI case”).

While intermediate scrutiny is to be applied to quasi-suspect classes, it is important to note that in the VMI case the Court used the words “exceedingly persuasive justification” to describe the burden on VMI, which seems to be something stronger than the traditional language of "substantial relationship to an important state interest" most often applied. In general, however, it seems safe to assume that, for other quasi-suspect classifications (other than gender), the more traditional formulation of intermediate scrutiny still applies.

Strict Scrutiny

When suspect classifications or fundamental rights are at stake, Equal Protection analysis requires the use of the strict scrutiny standard. As its name implies, this level of review is far more stringent than either rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny. For years, strict scrutiny was applied only in cases of laws which discriminated on the basis of race or national origin, but this exclusivity has been tested at times and might not persist indefinitely (see Suspect Classifications Based on Race and discussion regarding treatment of alienage classifications). This level of review, however, will not be applied simply because a law is, in its effect, prejudicial against a suspect classification or regarding a fundamental right. Rather, this high standard is intended to be a means by which particularly invidious or prejudicial discriminatory purposes, if it exists, can be brought to light. SeeU.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 (1938).

EXAMPLE: Southernstate passes a law which requires “all black employees shall receive 3/5 the compensation of a white employee for performing the same job.” This racial classification will be subjected to the strict scrutiny standard.

In order for a law to survive strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, the state interest involved must be more than “important” – it must be compelling. And the law itself must be necessary in order to achieve the objective – if there is any less discriminatory means of achieving the goal, the law will be struck down. See, e.g.,Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967). The requirement of necessity manifests itself in that courts require that the law be narrowly tailored to meet the objective. SeeNunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F. 3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 1997). As a practical matter, it is rare for a law to survive strict scrutiny review, and the last time a law involving discrimination on the basis of national origin or race survived strict scrutiny was in 1944. SeeKorematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

What does the Equal Protection Clause protect quizlet?

What does equal protection protect?

What clause is the Equal Protection Clause?

What are the 3 classifications under the Equal Protection Clause?