Key Cases Roemer V Evans, 1996 In Roemer, the Supreme Court
struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that
prohibited legal protections for individuals based on sexual
orientation. The court applied rational basis
review and found that the amendment lacked a legitimate
government interest as it was motivated by animus toward a
particular group. The decision in Roemer was a
significant victory for LGBTQ plus rights, as it marked one of
the first times the Supreme Court recognized that laws
discriminating against individuals based on sexual
orientation could be subject to judicial review under the Equal
Protection Clause. The case set the stage for
subsequent decisions that would further advance the legal
recognition of LGBTQ plus rights.
Lawrence, B Texas 2003 In Lawrence, the Supreme Court
struck down a Texas law criminalizing consensual sexual
conduct between same sex adults, recognizing that the law
violated the Equal Protection Clause and the right to privacy.
The Court's decision overturned its earlier ruling in Bowers V
Hardwick 1986 and marked a significant step forward in the
legal recognition of LGBTQ plus rights.
The decision in Lawrence was based on a combination of
substantive due process and equal protection principles,
emphasizing that the government cannot intrude on the private
lives of individuals without a compelling reason.
The case has been widely celebrated as a landmark in the
fight for LGBTQ plus equality. The role of rational basis
review and beyond rational basis review is the most deferential
standard of judicial review applied to classifications that
do not involve fundamental rights or suspect
classifications. Under this standard, a law or
government action will be upheld if it is rationally related to a
legitimate government interest. While this standard is generally
easy for the government to satisfy, the Court has
occasionally struck down laws under rational basis review when
they are motivated by animus or lack any legitimate
justification. In cases involving sexual
orientation, the Court has sometimes applied a standard of
review that is more rigorous than traditional rational basis
review, though it is not explicitly adopted intermediate
scrutiny or strict scrutiny for such cases.
This approach reflects the Court's recognition of the
historical discrimination faced by LGBTQ plus individuals and
the need for heightened scrutiny of laws that target them.
Ongoing Challenges and Controversies Discrimination
based on age, disability, and sexual orientation continues to
be a significant issue in American Society, with ongoing
legal challenges related to employment, housing, healthcare,
and public accommodations. The courts have made progress in
addressing these forms of discrimination, but significant
barriers and disparities remain. One of the most contentious
areas of equal protection jurisprudence is the treatment
of LGBTQ plus individuals, particularly in the context of
marriage equality, employment discrimination, and access to
health care. While the Supreme Court's
decisions in cases like Obergefell V.
Hodges 2015 have advanced the legal recognition of LGBTQ plus
rights, challenges related to religious freedom, public
accommodations, and transgender rights continue to spark intense
legal and political debates. Another area of concern is the
treatment of individuals with disabilities, where the
application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and
other legal protections has led to significant improvements in
access to education, employment, and public services.
However, challenges related to implicit bias, structural
barriers, and evolving interpretations of disability
rights continue to shape the legal landscape.
The Affirmative Action Definition and Purpose
Affirmative action refers to policies and practices designed
to address historical discrimination and promote
diversity by providing opportunities for
underrepresented groups. These policies often involve
race based or gender based considerations in areas such as
education, employment, and government contracting.
Affirmative action aims to level the playing field by taking
proactive steps to ensure that marginalized groups have access
to opportunities that have historically been denied to
them. Legal Challenges and the Equal
Protection Clause Affirmative action policies have been the
subject of numerous legal challenges under the Equal
Protection Clause. Opponents argue that such
policies constitute reverse discrimination, treating
individuals unfairly based on race or gender.
They contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires the
government to treat all individuals equally, without
regard to race or gender. Supporters of affirmative
action, however, argue that these policies are necessary to
address systemic inequalities and promote diversity in areas
where certain groups have been historically underrepresented.
Key Cases, Regions of the University of California V Baki,
1978. Baki was one of the first major
Supreme Court cases to address the constitutionality of
affirmative action in college admissions.
The case involved Alan Baki, a white applicant who was denied
admission to the University of California, Davis School of
Medicine despite having higher test scores than some of the
minority applicants who were admitted under a special
admissions program. The Supreme Court held that
while racial quotas were unconstitutional, race could be
considered as one factor among many in the admissions process.
The decision established the framework for evaluating
affirmative action policies under the Equal Protection
Clause, balancing the need to address past discrimination with
the prohibition against racial classifications.
The Baki decision was significant because it
recognized the importance of diversity in education as a
compelling government interest, while also emphasizing that
affirmative action policies must be narrowly tailored to achieve
that interest. The case set the stage for
subsequent decisions that would further refine the legal
standards for evaluating affirmative action.
Grutter V Bollinger 2003. In Grutter, the Supreme Court
upheld the University of Michigan Law School's
affirmative action program, finding that the use of race is
one factor in a holistic admissions process, served a
compelling interest in achieving diversity, and was narrowly
tailored to achieve that interest.
The Court applied strict scrutiny to the program and
concluded that it met the rigorous standards required for
race based classifications. The Grutter decision was a
significant victory for proponents of affirmative
action, as it reaffirmed the importance of diversity in
higher education and provided a clear legal framework for
evaluating the constitutionality of affirmative action policies.
The case also emphasized the importance of individualized
consideration and admissions decisions rather than the use of
rigid quotas or point systems. Fisher V.
University of Texas, 2013 and 2016.
The Fisher cases involved a challenge to the University of
Texas at Austin's affirmative action program, which considered
race as one factor in its admissions process.
The Supreme Court upheld the program, applying strict
scrutiny and finding that the program was narrowly tailored to
achieve the compelling interest of diversity in higher
education. The Fisher decisions were
significant because they reaffirmed the principles
established in Grotter and provided further guidance on the
application of strict scrutiny to affirmative action policies.
The cases also highlighted the ongoing debates and divisions
within the court regarding the use of race and admissions
decisions. The Role of strict scrutiny in
affirmative action cases. Strict scrutiny is the standard
of review applied to race based affirmative action policies.
Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that
the policy serves a compelling state interest and that the
means chosen are narrowly tailored to achieve that
interest. This rigorous standard reflects
the Court's recognition that race based classifications are
inherently suspect and must be justified by the most pressing
and legitimate concerns in affirmative action cases.
The Court has recognized diversity in education as a
compelling interest that can justify the consideration of
race and admissions decisions. However, the Court has also
emphasized that affirmative action policies must be
carefully designed to avoid undue harm to individuals who
are not members of the targeted groups.
This requires a careful balancing of the benefits of
diversity against the potential for reverse discrimination
criticisms and controversies. Affirmative action remains a
highly contentious issue, with debate centering on the fairness
and effectiveness of such policies.
Critics argue that affirmative action can result in reverse
discrimination, perpetuate racial and gender stereotypes,
and undermine the principle of merit based selection.
They contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires the
government to treat all individuals equally, without
regard to race or gender, and that affirmative action policies
violate this principle. Supporters of affirmative
action, on the other hand, argue that these policies are
necessary to address historical injustices and promote equal
opportunities for all individuals.
They contend that affirmative action helps to level the
playing field for groups that have been historically
marginalized and ensures that institutions reflect the
diversity of the broader society.
Proponents also argue that diversity in education and
employment enriches the learning and working environments and
benefits society as a whole. The debate over affirmative
action is further complicated by differing views on the role of
race and gender in American Society.
While some argue that affirmative action is no longer
necessary in a post racial society, others contend that
systemic inequalities persist and that affirmative action
remains a vital tool for addressing these disparities.
Ongoing Legal and Policy Debates The legal and policy debates
over affirmative action are likely to continue for the
foreseeable future as new cases and challenges arise in the
courts. The Supreme Court's decisions in
cases like Baki, Grutter, and Fisher have provided a framework
for evaluating affirmative action policies, but they have
also left many questions unresolved.
One of the key issues in the ongoing debate is the role of
race neutral alternatives in achieving diversity.
Some argue that institutions should focus on socioeconomic
factors rather than race to promote diversity, while others
contend that race remains a critical factor that cannot be
ignored. The courts will likely continue
to grapple with these issues as they consider the
constitutionality of affirmative action policies in the years to
come. Another area of debate is the
impact of affirmative action on different racial ethnic groups.
Some critics argue that affirmative action policies
unfairly disadvantage Asian American applicants and college
admissions, while others contend that these policies are
necessary to ensure representation for historically
underrepresented groups. The courts have begun to address
these concerns in recent cases, and the outcome of these cases
will likely have significant implications for the future of
affirmative action. Conclusion.
The role of the Equal Protection Clause in addressing
Discrimination and affirmative action The Equal Protection
Clause has played a central role in addressing issues of
discrimination and ensuring that individuals are not treated
unfairly based on characteristics such as race,
gender, or ethnicity. Through the development of legal
frameworks like rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny,
and strict scrutiny, the courts have provided a structure for
analyzing the constitutionality of laws and government actions
that classify individuals based on these characteristics.
Affirmative action policies, designed to address historical
discrimination and promote diversity, have been a focal
point of equal protection jurisprudence.
While these policies have faced significant legal challenges,
the courts have generally upheld them as long as they meet the
rigorous standards required by the Equal Protection Clause.
The debates over discrimination and affirmative action are far
from settled, and the courts will likely continue to play a
critical role in shaping the legal landscape in these areas.
As society evolves and new challenges arise, the Equal
Protection Clause will remain a vital tool for ensuring that all
individuals are treated fairly and that the promise of equal
protection under the law is fulfilled for all three.
Equal protection and race, gender and other classifications
1 Introduction to equal protection and classifications.
The Equal Protection Clause, enshrined in the 14th Amendment
to the US Constitution, is a fundamental principle that
ensures individuals are not treated unfairly or
discriminated against by the government based on arbitrary
classifications. This chapter delves into how the
judiciary has interpreted and applied the Equal Protection
clause, particularly in cases involving race, gender, and
other classifications such as sexual orientation, disability,
and age. The discussion will cover the
historical context, key legal cases, and the ongoing evolution
of equal protection jurisprudence. 2 Equal
Protection and Race A Historical Context The Equal Protection
Clause was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War as
part of the Reconstruction Amendments.
Its primary aim was to protect newly freed African Americans
from discriminatory practices in the Southern states, where laws
were often explicitly designed to maintain racial
subordination. The scope of the clause has
since expanded, addressing various forms of racial
discrimination in different contexts.
The key cases Plessy V Ferguson 1896 The Supreme Court in Plessy
V Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of racial
segregation under the separate but equal doctrine, which
allowed states to maintain segregated public facilities as
long as they were purportedly equal in quality.
This decision entrenched racial segregation and was a
significant set back for civil rights, legitimizing the
systemic oppression of African Americans across the United
States. The doctrine remained the law of
the land until it was eventually overturned by Brown V Board of
Education. Brown V Board of Education,
1954. Brown V Board of Education is
one of the most pivotal Supreme Court cases in American history.
The Court held that separate but equal facilities were inherently
unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
This landmark decision marked the beginning of the end for
state sanctioned racial segregation, particularly in
public schools, and served as a catalyst for the civil rights
movement. The case signified a shift in
the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, emphasizing
that state imposed segregation was incompatible with a
constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Loving V Virginia, 1967. In Loving V Virginia, the
Supreme Court struck down Virginia's anti miscegenation
laws, which prohibited interracial marriage.
The Court held that such laws were based on racial
discrimination and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
This decision was a critical step in dismantling legal
barriers to interracial relationships and further
established the principle that racial classifications must be
subjected to the strictest scrutiny under the law.
See affirmative action and race. Affirmative action policies have
been a focal point of equal protection jurisprudence,
particularly when these policies involve race as a factor in
decision making processes such as college admissions.
The courts have had to balance the need to address historical
discrimination with the constitutional prohibition
against racial classifications that perpetuate inequality.
Regions of the University of California, Vibaki, 1978.
In Baki, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality
of race based affirmative action in college admissions.
The court struck down the use of racial quotas, but allowed for
race to be considered as one factor in admissions decisions.
The decision set the precedent that while race can play a role
in achieving diversity, it cannot be the sole determinant
and any consideration of race must be part of a holistic
review process. Crutter V Bollinger, 2003.
In Gruder V Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the
University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action
program. The Court found that the use of
race is one factor in a holistic admissions process, served a
compelling interest in achieving diversity in higher education,
and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
This decision reinforced the notion that diversity is a
legitimate goal that can justify the consideration of race under
the Equal Protection Clause. Parents involved in Community
Schools The Seattle School district #1 2007, the Supreme
Court in parents Involved struck down race based assignment plans
in public schools. The Court held that the plans
were not narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity
and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.
This decision highlighted the limitations of race based
policies, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny to ensure
that such policies do not lead to unconstitutional
discrimination. 3 Equal Protection and Gender A
Historical Context Gender discrimination emerged as a
significant area of equal protection jurisprudence in the
20th century. Initially, laws and practices
that treated individuals differently based on gender were
often accepted as natural or justified by traditional roles.
However, as the women's rights movement gained momentum, the
courts began to apply increased scrutiny to gender based
classifications, leading to greater gender equality under
the law. The key cases.
Read V. Read 1971.
Read V. Read marked the first time the
Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to strike down
a gender based classification. The Court invalidated a state
law that preferred men over women as administrators of
estates, ruling that the law was an arbitrary and
unconstitutional gender discrimination.
This case laid the groundwork for future challenges to gender
based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.
Craig V Boren, 1976. In Craig V Boren, the Supreme
Court established intermediate scrutinies, the standard for
evaluating gender based classifications.
The Court struck down an Oklahoma law that established
different drinking ages for men and women, finding that the
gender based classification was not substantially related to an
important government interest. This case was significant in
setting a higher standard of review for gender discrimination
cases. United States V Virginia, 1996.
United States V Virginia involved the Virginia Military
Institute, the Mia state supported institution that
excluded women from admission. The Supreme Court struck down
the exclusion, applying intermediate scrutiny and
finding that Virginia's justification for the gender
based exclusion did not meet the required standard.
The Court ruled that gender based classifications must
demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification,
further solidifying the application of intermediate
scrutiny and gender discrimination cases.
See Gender Based Affirmative action.
Affirmative action policies based on gender have also been
subject to legal challenges under the Equal Protection
Clause. The courts have applied
intermediate scrutiny to these policies, requiring the
government to show that the classification is substantially
related to an important government interest.
Johnson V Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 1987.
In Johnson, the Supreme Court upheld the gender based
affirmative action plan that promoted a woman over a more
qualified man. The Court found that the plan
was substantially related to the important government interest of
remedying past discrimination. This case demonstrated that
gender based affirmative action policies could withstand
constitutional scrutiny if they were designed to address
historical disparities. Mississippi University for Women
V Hogan, 1982. In Hogan, the Supreme Court
struck down a state law that excluded men from enrolling in a
nursing program at a State University.
The Court found that the exclusion was not substantially
related to the goal of remedying past discrimination and thus
violated the Equal Protection Clause.
This case highlighted the limitations of gender based
affirmative action policies, emphasizing that they must be
carefully tailored to meet constitutional standards.
For equal protection and other classifications, asexual
orientation discrimination based on sexual orientation has become
an increasingly significant area of equal protection
jurisprudence. While the courts have
traditionally applied rational basis review the laws that
classify individuals based on sexual orientation, recent
decisions suggest a trend toward heightened scrutiny for such
classifications. Roamer V Evans, 1996.
In Romer V Evans, the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado
constitutional amendment that prohibited legal protections for
individuals based on sexual orientation.
The Court applied rational basis review and found that the
amendment lacked a legitimate government interest and was
motivated by animus toward a particular group.
This decision was a significant victory for LGBTQ plus rights,
marking one of the first times the Court recognized that laws
discriminating against individuals based on sexual
orientation could be subject to judicial review under the Equal
Protection Clause. Lawrence B Texas, 2003.
In Lawrence B Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law
criminalizing consensual sexual conduct between same sex adults,
recognizing that the law violated the Equal Protection
Clause and the right to privacy. The Court's decision overturned
its earlier ruling in Bowers V Hardwick 1986 and marked a
significant step forward in the legal recognition of LGBTQ plus
rights. The case was based on a
combination of substantive due process and equal protection
principles, emphasizing that the government cannot intrude on the
private lives of individuals without a compelling reason.
Obergefell V Hodges, 2015 In Obergefell V Hodges, the Supreme
Court recognized the right of same sex couples to marry,
holding that state laws prohibiting same sex marriage
violated the Equal Protection in Due Process Clauses of the 14th
Amendment. This landmark decision was a
monumental victory for marriage equality and solidified the
legal status of LGBTQ plus individuals in the United
States. The Court's ruling underscored
the principle that laws denying individuals the right to marry
based on sexual orientation were unconstitutional be disability.
Discrimination based on disability is another important
area of equal protection jurisprudence.
While the courts typically apply rational basis review to laws
that classify individuals based on disability, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, ADA, provides additional protections
against discrimination and has been instrumental in advancing
the rights of individuals with disabilities.
Cleveland V Cleburne Living Center, 1985 In Cleveland V
Cleburne Living Center, the Supreme Court struck down a city
ordinance that required a special permit for a group home
for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
The Court found that the ordinance lacked a rational
basis and violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The decision was significant in recognizing that laws
discriminating against individuals with disabilities
must be subject to judicial scrutiny, even if they do not
warrant the highest level of scrutiny.
Board of Trustees at the University of Alabama V Garrett,
2001. In Garrett, the Supreme Court
held that states could not be sued for monetary damages under
the ADA, finding that the law's abrogation of state sovereign
immunity was not justified by a pattern of unconstitutional
discrimination. The decision was a set back for
disability rights advocates, but also highlighted the limitations
of the Equal Protection Clause in addressing issues related to
state sovereignty. C Age discrimination based on
ages generally subject to rational basis review as age is
not considered a suspect classification under the Equal
Protection Clause. However, age discrimination laws
such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA, provide
additional protections against age based discrimination.
Massachusetts Board of Retirement B Merga 1976 In
Merga, the Supreme Court of held a state law that required police
officers to retire at age 50, finding that the law was
rationally related to the state's interest in maintaining
a physically fit police force. The Court applied rational basis
review, emphasizing that age classifications are generally
presumed to be constitutional unless they are shown to be
arbitrary or irrational. Kimmel V Florida Board of
Regents, 2000. In Kimmel, the Supreme Court
held that the Idea's abrogation of state sovereign immunity was
not justified by a pattern of unconstitutional age
discrimination limiting the ability of individuals to sue
states for age discrimination under the IDEA.
The decision reinforced the principle that age
discrimination is subject to a lower level of judicial scrutiny
and that states retain certain immunities from federal lawsuits
under the 11th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause has
been a powerful tool in the fight against discrimination,
helping to dismantle systemic inequalities and promote justice
for all individuals, regardless of race, gender, sexual
orientation, disability, or age. The judiciary's application of
different levels of scrutiny, rational basis, intermediate and
strict scrutiny, has provided a framework for analyzing the
constitutionality of laws and government actions that classify
individuals based on these characteristics.
Despite the progress made in achieving greater equality, the
struggle for equal protection under the law is ongoing.
Affirmative action policies, in particular, continue to generate
debate and legal challenges as society grapples with the legacy
of historical discrimination and the need for diversity and
inclusion. As the legal landscape evolves,
the Equal Protection Clause will remain a cornerstone of
constitutional jurisprudence, ensuring that the promise of
equal protection is fulfilled for all individuals, regardless
of their background or identity. Summary of Chapter 10.
Equal Protection Chapter 10 explores the application of the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees
that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the
laws. This chapter delves into how
courts interpret and enforce this principle, focusing on
different levels of judicial scrutiny, issues of
discrimination, and the implementation of affirmative
action across various classifications such as race,
gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age. 1 Levels of
scrutiny The judiciary employs 3 main levels of scrutiny to
assess whether a law or government action violates the
Equal Protection Clause. Rational basis review This is
the most lenient standard applied in cases that do not
involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications.
Laws are upheld if they are rationally related to a
legitimate government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny This is a
more rigorous standard applied to cases involving gender
discrimination or classifications based on
legitimacy. Laws must be substantially
related to an important government interest to be
upheld. Strict scrutiny The most
stringent standard used in cases involving fundamental rights or
suspect classifications like race or national origin laws,
must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government
interest. 2 Discrimination and Affirmative Action The chapter
also discusses how the Equal Protection Clause addresses
discrimination and the constitutionality of affirmative
action policies. Race Discrimination The courts
apply strict scrutiny to any laws or policies that classify
individuals based on race. Landmark cases like Brown V.
Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia demonstrate how the
courts have struck down laws that perpetuate racial
inequality. Gender Discrimination Gender
based classifications are subject to intermediate
scrutiny. Significant cases such as Read
V. Read in United States V Virginia
have shaped the legal landscape for gender equality affirmative
action. The chapter examines the
contentious legal debates surrounding affirmative action,
particularly in higher education and employment.
Cases like Regents of the University of California Vidbaki
and Gretter V. Bollinger illustrate the
delicate balance the court strike between remedying past
discrimination and avoiding new forms of inequality. 3 Equal
Protection and Race Gender and Other Classifications The
chapter further explores how the equal protection clause has been
applied to various forms of discrimination.
Race Beyond the classic cases of racial segregation, the chapter
discusses how the courts have dealt with affirmative action
and racial classifications in education and employment.
Gender. It examines the evolution of
gender discrimination law and the impact of major Supreme
Court decisions in advancing gender equality.
Sexual Orientation. Recent advancements in LGBTQ
plus rights are highlighted, with cases like Lawrence V.
Texas and Obergefell V. Hodges demonstrating the
application of equal protection to sexual orientation.
Disability and age The chapter discusses how the courts address
discrimination based on disability and age, typically
applying a more deferential standard but recognizing the
importance of protecting vulnerable groups.
Conclusion Chapter 10 provides a comprehensive overview of the
Equal Protection Clause and its critical role in promoting
justice and equality. Through various levels of
scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that laws and government actions
do not arbitrarily or unjustly discriminate against
individuals. The chapter underscores the
ongoing challenges and debates surrounding affirmative action
and the application of equal protection to various
classifications, reflecting the evolving nature of civil rights
in America. Chapter 10 explores the profound
impact of the Equal Protection Clause on American law and
society. By examining the levels of
scrutiny, the role of discrimination and affirmative
action, and the application of equal protection, and addressing
issues related to race, gender, and other classifications, this
chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of how the Equal
Protection Clause has shaped the fight for equality and justice.
The principles of equal protection continue to evolve as
society confronts new challenges and debates over the meaning and
scope of equality. The ongoing struggle to balance
individual rights with societal interests underscores the
enduring importance of the Equal Protection Clause in the quest
for a more just and inclusive society.