1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:06,880
Key Cases Roemer V Evans, 1996 
In Roemer, the Supreme Court 

2
00:00:06,880 --> 00:00:09,680
struck down a Colorado 
constitutional amendment that 

3
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:13,120
prohibited legal protections for
individuals based on sexual 

4
00:00:13,120 --> 00:00:16,200
orientation. 
The court applied rational basis

5
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:18,720
review and found that the 
amendment lacked a legitimate 

6
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:21,720
government interest as it was 
motivated by animus toward a 

7
00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:24,560
particular group. 
The decision in Roemer was a 

8
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:28,800
significant victory for LGBTQ 
plus rights, as it marked one of

9
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:31,560
the first times the Supreme 
Court recognized that laws 

10
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:34,440
discriminating against 
individuals based on sexual 

11
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:37,720
orientation could be subject to 
judicial review under the Equal 

12
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:40,520
Protection Clause. 
The case set the stage for 

13
00:00:40,520 --> 00:00:43,160
subsequent decisions that would 
further advance the legal 

14
00:00:43,160 --> 00:00:45,800
recognition of LGBTQ plus 
rights. 

15
00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:51,160
Lawrence, B Texas 2003 In 
Lawrence, the Supreme Court 

16
00:00:51,160 --> 00:00:54,440
struck down a Texas law 
criminalizing consensual sexual 

17
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:57,720
conduct between same sex adults,
recognizing that the law 

18
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:01,120
violated the Equal Protection 
Clause and the right to privacy.

19
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:04,840
The Court's decision overturned 
its earlier ruling in Bowers V 

20
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,880
Hardwick 1986 and marked a 
significant step forward in the 

21
00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:11,840
legal recognition of LGBTQ plus 
rights. 

22
00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:14,880
The decision in Lawrence was 
based on a combination of 

23
00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:18,120
substantive due process and 
equal protection principles, 

24
00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:21,000
emphasizing that the government 
cannot intrude on the private 

25
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:23,560
lives of individuals without a 
compelling reason. 

26
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:26,720
The case has been widely 
celebrated as a landmark in the 

27
00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:31,240
fight for LGBTQ plus equality. 
The role of rational basis 

28
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:35,560
review and beyond rational basis
review is the most deferential 

29
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:38,840
standard of judicial review 
applied to classifications that 

30
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:41,000
do not involve fundamental 
rights or suspect 

31
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,280
classifications. 
Under this standard, a law or 

32
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:47,400
government action will be upheld
if it is rationally related to a

33
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:51,000
legitimate government interest. 
While this standard is generally

34
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:53,640
easy for the government to 
satisfy, the Court has 

35
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:57,040
occasionally struck down laws 
under rational basis review when

36
00:01:57,040 --> 00:01:59,840
they are motivated by animus or 
lack any legitimate 

37
00:01:59,840 --> 00:02:03,040
justification. 
In cases involving sexual 

38
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:06,240
orientation, the Court has 
sometimes applied a standard of 

39
00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:09,360
review that is more rigorous 
than traditional rational basis 

40
00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:12,520
review, though it is not 
explicitly adopted intermediate 

41
00:02:12,520 --> 00:02:15,040
scrutiny or strict scrutiny for 
such cases. 

42
00:02:15,520 --> 00:02:17,880
This approach reflects the 
Court's recognition of the 

43
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:22,240
historical discrimination faced 
by LGBTQ plus individuals and 

44
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:24,840
the need for heightened scrutiny
of laws that target them. 

45
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,320
Ongoing Challenges and 
Controversies Discrimination 

46
00:02:29,320 --> 00:02:33,160
based on age, disability, and 
sexual orientation continues to 

47
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,600
be a significant issue in 
American Society, with ongoing 

48
00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:40,360
legal challenges related to 
employment, housing, healthcare,

49
00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:43,920
and public accommodations. 
The courts have made progress in

50
00:02:43,920 --> 00:02:47,000
addressing these forms of 
discrimination, but significant 

51
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,560
barriers and disparities remain.
One of the most contentious 

52
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:53,600
areas of equal protection 
jurisprudence is the treatment 

53
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:57,680
of LGBTQ plus individuals, 
particularly in the context of 

54
00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:01,040
marriage equality, employment 
discrimination, and access to 

55
00:03:01,040 --> 00:03:03,280
health care. 
While the Supreme Court's 

56
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:05,440
decisions in cases like 
Obergefell V. 

57
00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:10,560
Hodges 2015 have advanced the 
legal recognition of LGBTQ plus 

58
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:13,800
rights, challenges related to 
religious freedom, public 

59
00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:17,440
accommodations, and transgender 
rights continue to spark intense

60
00:03:17,440 --> 00:03:21,120
legal and political debates. 
Another area of concern is the 

61
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:23,880
treatment of individuals with 
disabilities, where the 

62
00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:27,760
application of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, ADA, and 

63
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:30,880
other legal protections has led 
to significant improvements in 

64
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:34,520
access to education, employment,
and public services. 

65
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:38,480
However, challenges related to 
implicit bias, structural 

66
00:03:38,480 --> 00:03:41,520
barriers, and evolving 
interpretations of disability 

67
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:43,800
rights continue to shape the 
legal landscape. 

68
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,560
The Affirmative Action 
Definition and Purpose 

69
00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:51,600
Affirmative action refers to 
policies and practices designed 

70
00:03:51,600 --> 00:03:54,160
to address historical 
discrimination and promote 

71
00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:56,320
diversity by providing 
opportunities for 

72
00:03:56,320 --> 00:03:59,720
underrepresented groups. 
These policies often involve 

73
00:03:59,720 --> 00:04:03,040
race based or gender based 
considerations in areas such as 

74
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:06,040
education, employment, and 
government contracting. 

75
00:04:06,560 --> 00:04:09,560
Affirmative action aims to level
the playing field by taking 

76
00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:12,800
proactive steps to ensure that 
marginalized groups have access 

77
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:15,320
to opportunities that have 
historically been denied to 

78
00:04:15,320 --> 00:04:17,800
them. 
Legal Challenges and the Equal 

79
00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:21,600
Protection Clause Affirmative 
action policies have been the 

80
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:24,400
subject of numerous legal 
challenges under the Equal 

81
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,320
Protection Clause. 
Opponents argue that such 

82
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:30,520
policies constitute reverse 
discrimination, treating 

83
00:04:30,520 --> 00:04:33,200
individuals unfairly based on 
race or gender. 

84
00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:36,440
They contend that the Equal 
Protection Clause requires the 

85
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,480
government to treat all 
individuals equally, without 

86
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:42,800
regard to race or gender. 
Supporters of affirmative 

87
00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:46,280
action, however, argue that 
these policies are necessary to 

88
00:04:46,320 --> 00:04:49,840
address systemic inequalities 
and promote diversity in areas 

89
00:04:49,840 --> 00:04:52,760
where certain groups have been 
historically underrepresented. 

90
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:57,680
Key Cases, Regions of the 
University of California V Baki,

91
00:04:57,840 --> 00:05:01,480
1978. 
Baki was one of the first major 

92
00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:04,600
Supreme Court cases to address 
the constitutionality of 

93
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:06,760
affirmative action in college 
admissions. 

94
00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:10,760
The case involved Alan Baki, a 
white applicant who was denied 

95
00:05:10,760 --> 00:05:14,400
admission to the University of 
California, Davis School of 

96
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:17,320
Medicine despite having higher 
test scores than some of the 

97
00:05:17,320 --> 00:05:19,880
minority applicants who were 
admitted under a special 

98
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:22,720
admissions program. 
The Supreme Court held that 

99
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:25,840
while racial quotas were 
unconstitutional, race could be 

100
00:05:25,840 --> 00:05:29,200
considered as one factor among 
many in the admissions process. 

101
00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:32,400
The decision established the 
framework for evaluating 

102
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:35,160
affirmative action policies 
under the Equal Protection 

103
00:05:35,160 --> 00:05:38,480
Clause, balancing the need to 
address past discrimination with

104
00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:41,040
the prohibition against racial 
classifications. 

105
00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:43,600
The Baki decision was 
significant because it 

106
00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:46,440
recognized the importance of 
diversity in education as a 

107
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:49,520
compelling government interest, 
while also emphasizing that 

108
00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:52,600
affirmative action policies must
be narrowly tailored to achieve 

109
00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:55,040
that interest. 
The case set the stage for 

110
00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:57,560
subsequent decisions that would 
further refine the legal 

111
00:05:57,560 --> 00:06:00,000
standards for evaluating 
affirmative action. 

112
00:06:00,480 --> 00:06:05,280
Grutter V Bollinger 2003. 
In Grutter, the Supreme Court 

113
00:06:05,280 --> 00:06:07,600
upheld the University of 
Michigan Law School's 

114
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:10,800
affirmative action program, 
finding that the use of race is 

115
00:06:10,800 --> 00:06:13,480
one factor in a holistic 
admissions process, served a 

116
00:06:13,480 --> 00:06:16,360
compelling interest in achieving
diversity, and was narrowly 

117
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:17,920
tailored to achieve that 
interest. 

118
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:20,880
The Court applied strict 
scrutiny to the program and 

119
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:23,440
concluded that it met the 
rigorous standards required for 

120
00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:26,880
race based classifications. 
The Grutter decision was a 

121
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:29,280
significant victory for 
proponents of affirmative 

122
00:06:29,280 --> 00:06:32,320
action, as it reaffirmed the 
importance of diversity in 

123
00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:35,640
higher education and provided a 
clear legal framework for 

124
00:06:35,640 --> 00:06:39,280
evaluating the constitutionality
of affirmative action policies. 

125
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:42,920
The case also emphasized the 
importance of individualized 

126
00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:46,200
consideration and admissions 
decisions rather than the use of

127
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:49,080
rigid quotas or point systems. 
Fisher V. 

128
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:52,480
University of Texas, 2013 and 
2016. 

129
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:56,040
The Fisher cases involved a 
challenge to the University of 

130
00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:59,600
Texas at Austin's affirmative 
action program, which considered

131
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:02,160
race as one factor in its 
admissions process. 

132
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:05,560
The Supreme Court upheld the 
program, applying strict 

133
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:08,400
scrutiny and finding that the 
program was narrowly tailored to

134
00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:10,920
achieve the compelling interest 
of diversity in higher 

135
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:13,320
education. 
The Fisher decisions were 

136
00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:15,640
significant because they 
reaffirmed the principles 

137
00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:18,400
established in Grotter and 
provided further guidance on the

138
00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:21,760
application of strict scrutiny 
to affirmative action policies. 

139
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,720
The cases also highlighted the 
ongoing debates and divisions 

140
00:07:25,720 --> 00:07:28,320
within the court regarding the 
use of race and admissions 

141
00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:31,040
decisions. 
The Role of strict scrutiny in 

142
00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:34,880
affirmative action cases. 
Strict scrutiny is the standard 

143
00:07:34,880 --> 00:07:38,120
of review applied to race based 
affirmative action policies. 

144
00:07:38,640 --> 00:07:41,320
Under this standard, the 
government must demonstrate that

145
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:43,920
the policy serves a compelling 
state interest and that the 

146
00:07:43,920 --> 00:07:46,280
means chosen are narrowly 
tailored to achieve that 

147
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:48,960
interest. 
This rigorous standard reflects 

148
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:51,920
the Court's recognition that 
race based classifications are 

149
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:55,120
inherently suspect and must be 
justified by the most pressing 

150
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:58,480
and legitimate concerns in 
affirmative action cases. 

151
00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:01,360
The Court has recognized 
diversity in education as a 

152
00:08:01,360 --> 00:08:04,080
compelling interest that can 
justify the consideration of 

153
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:07,920
race and admissions decisions. 
However, the Court has also 

154
00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:10,520
emphasized that affirmative 
action policies must be 

155
00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:13,600
carefully designed to avoid 
undue harm to individuals who 

156
00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:15,520
are not members of the targeted 
groups. 

157
00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:18,520
This requires a careful 
balancing of the benefits of 

158
00:08:18,520 --> 00:08:21,720
diversity against the potential 
for reverse discrimination 

159
00:08:22,200 --> 00:08:26,200
criticisms and controversies. 
Affirmative action remains a 

160
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:29,560
highly contentious issue, with 
debate centering on the fairness

161
00:08:29,560 --> 00:08:31,440
and effectiveness of such 
policies. 

162
00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:34,840
Critics argue that affirmative 
action can result in reverse 

163
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:38,400
discrimination, perpetuate 
racial and gender stereotypes, 

164
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,280
and undermine the principle of 
merit based selection. 

165
00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:44,560
They contend that the Equal 
Protection Clause requires the 

166
00:08:44,560 --> 00:08:47,560
government to treat all 
individuals equally, without 

167
00:08:47,560 --> 00:08:51,000
regard to race or gender, and 
that affirmative action policies

168
00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:54,080
violate this principle. 
Supporters of affirmative 

169
00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:57,400
action, on the other hand, argue
that these policies are 

170
00:08:57,400 --> 00:09:00,800
necessary to address historical 
injustices and promote equal 

171
00:09:00,800 --> 00:09:03,000
opportunities for all 
individuals. 

172
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:05,880
They contend that affirmative 
action helps to level the 

173
00:09:05,880 --> 00:09:08,160
playing field for groups that 
have been historically 

174
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:11,240
marginalized and ensures that 
institutions reflect the 

175
00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:13,040
diversity of the broader 
society. 

176
00:09:13,520 --> 00:09:16,640
Proponents also argue that 
diversity in education and 

177
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:19,320
employment enriches the learning
and working environments and 

178
00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:22,720
benefits society as a whole. 
The debate over affirmative 

179
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:25,720
action is further complicated by
differing views on the role of 

180
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:28,000
race and gender in American 
Society. 

181
00:09:28,440 --> 00:09:30,920
While some argue that 
affirmative action is no longer 

182
00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:34,200
necessary in a post racial 
society, others contend that 

183
00:09:34,200 --> 00:09:37,400
systemic inequalities persist 
and that affirmative action 

184
00:09:37,400 --> 00:09:40,280
remains a vital tool for 
addressing these disparities. 

185
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:45,280
Ongoing Legal and Policy Debates
The legal and policy debates 

186
00:09:45,280 --> 00:09:47,720
over affirmative action are 
likely to continue for the 

187
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:51,200
foreseeable future as new cases 
and challenges arise in the 

188
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:53,840
courts. 
The Supreme Court's decisions in

189
00:09:53,840 --> 00:09:57,560
cases like Baki, Grutter, and 
Fisher have provided a framework

190
00:09:57,560 --> 00:10:00,520
for evaluating affirmative 
action policies, but they have 

191
00:10:00,520 --> 00:10:02,640
also left many questions 
unresolved. 

192
00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:05,920
One of the key issues in the 
ongoing debate is the role of 

193
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:08,480
race neutral alternatives in 
achieving diversity. 

194
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:12,280
Some argue that institutions 
should focus on socioeconomic 

195
00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:15,880
factors rather than race to 
promote diversity, while others 

196
00:10:15,880 --> 00:10:18,600
contend that race remains a 
critical factor that cannot be 

197
00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:21,080
ignored. 
The courts will likely continue 

198
00:10:21,080 --> 00:10:23,200
to grapple with these issues as 
they consider the 

199
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,520
constitutionality of affirmative
action policies in the years to 

200
00:10:26,520 --> 00:10:28,960
come. 
Another area of debate is the 

201
00:10:28,960 --> 00:10:32,400
impact of affirmative action on 
different racial ethnic groups. 

202
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:35,560
Some critics argue that 
affirmative action policies 

203
00:10:35,560 --> 00:10:38,800
unfairly disadvantage Asian 
American applicants and college 

204
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:41,600
admissions, while others contend
that these policies are 

205
00:10:41,600 --> 00:10:44,480
necessary to ensure 
representation for historically 

206
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:47,720
underrepresented groups. 
The courts have begun to address

207
00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:51,120
these concerns in recent cases, 
and the outcome of these cases 

208
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:53,920
will likely have significant 
implications for the future of 

209
00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:56,320
affirmative action. 
Conclusion. 

210
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:58,960
The role of the Equal Protection
Clause in addressing 

211
00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:02,640
Discrimination and affirmative 
action The Equal Protection 

212
00:11:02,640 --> 00:11:05,320
Clause has played a central role
in addressing issues of 

213
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:08,400
discrimination and ensuring that
individuals are not treated 

214
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:10,960
unfairly based on 
characteristics such as race, 

215
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:14,400
gender, or ethnicity. 
Through the development of legal

216
00:11:14,400 --> 00:11:18,120
frameworks like rational basis 
review, intermediate scrutiny, 

217
00:11:18,280 --> 00:11:21,520
and strict scrutiny, the courts 
have provided a structure for 

218
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:24,800
analyzing the constitutionality 
of laws and government actions 

219
00:11:24,800 --> 00:11:27,800
that classify individuals based 
on these characteristics. 

220
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:31,520
Affirmative action policies, 
designed to address historical 

221
00:11:31,520 --> 00:11:34,560
discrimination and promote 
diversity, have been a focal 

222
00:11:34,560 --> 00:11:36,840
point of equal protection 
jurisprudence. 

223
00:11:37,280 --> 00:11:40,480
While these policies have faced 
significant legal challenges, 

224
00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:43,240
the courts have generally upheld
them as long as they meet the 

225
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:46,360
rigorous standards required by 
the Equal Protection Clause. 

226
00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:49,880
The debates over discrimination 
and affirmative action are far 

227
00:11:49,880 --> 00:11:52,560
from settled, and the courts 
will likely continue to play a 

228
00:11:52,560 --> 00:11:55,840
critical role in shaping the 
legal landscape in these areas. 

229
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:59,560
As society evolves and new 
challenges arise, the Equal 

230
00:11:59,560 --> 00:12:02,800
Protection Clause will remain a 
vital tool for ensuring that all

231
00:12:02,800 --> 00:12:05,720
individuals are treated fairly 
and that the promise of equal 

232
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:09,000
protection under the law is 
fulfilled for all three. 

233
00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:13,080
Equal protection and race, 
gender and other classifications

234
00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:17,560
1 Introduction to equal 
protection and classifications. 

235
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,600
The Equal Protection Clause, 
enshrined in the 14th Amendment 

236
00:12:21,600 --> 00:12:24,880
to the US Constitution, is a 
fundamental principle that 

237
00:12:24,880 --> 00:12:27,560
ensures individuals are not 
treated unfairly or 

238
00:12:27,560 --> 00:12:30,480
discriminated against by the 
government based on arbitrary 

239
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:33,520
classifications. 
This chapter delves into how the

240
00:12:33,520 --> 00:12:36,680
judiciary has interpreted and 
applied the Equal Protection 

241
00:12:36,680 --> 00:12:40,560
clause, particularly in cases 
involving race, gender, and 

242
00:12:40,560 --> 00:12:44,320
other classifications such as 
sexual orientation, disability, 

243
00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:46,720
and age. 
The discussion will cover the 

244
00:12:46,720 --> 00:12:50,880
historical context, key legal 
cases, and the ongoing evolution

245
00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:54,560
of equal protection 
jurisprudence. 2 Equal 

246
00:12:54,560 --> 00:12:59,440
Protection and Race A Historical
Context The Equal Protection 

247
00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:02,280
Clause was adopted in the 
aftermath of the Civil War as 

248
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:04,160
part of the Reconstruction 
Amendments. 

249
00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:07,960
Its primary aim was to protect 
newly freed African Americans 

250
00:13:07,960 --> 00:13:11,280
from discriminatory practices in
the Southern states, where laws 

251
00:13:11,280 --> 00:13:13,760
were often explicitly designed 
to maintain racial 

252
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:16,360
subordination. 
The scope of the clause has 

253
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:19,240
since expanded, addressing 
various forms of racial 

254
00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:21,440
discrimination in different 
contexts. 

255
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:27,360
The key cases Plessy V Ferguson 
1896 The Supreme Court in Plessy

256
00:13:27,360 --> 00:13:30,080
V Ferguson upheld the 
constitutionality of racial 

257
00:13:30,080 --> 00:13:33,240
segregation under the separate 
but equal doctrine, which 

258
00:13:33,240 --> 00:13:36,360
allowed states to maintain 
segregated public facilities as 

259
00:13:36,360 --> 00:13:38,760
long as they were purportedly 
equal in quality. 

260
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:42,040
This decision entrenched racial 
segregation and was a 

261
00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:45,160
significant set back for civil 
rights, legitimizing the 

262
00:13:45,160 --> 00:13:48,200
systemic oppression of African 
Americans across the United 

263
00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:50,720
States. 
The doctrine remained the law of

264
00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:53,960
the land until it was eventually
overturned by Brown V Board of 

265
00:13:53,960 --> 00:13:56,960
Education. 
Brown V Board of Education, 

266
00:13:57,080 --> 00:14:00,000
1954. 
Brown V Board of Education is 

267
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,360
one of the most pivotal Supreme 
Court cases in American history.

268
00:14:03,840 --> 00:14:07,000
The Court held that separate but
equal facilities were inherently

269
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:09,840
unequal and violated the Equal 
Protection Clause. 

270
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:13,080
This landmark decision marked 
the beginning of the end for 

271
00:14:13,080 --> 00:14:16,000
state sanctioned racial 
segregation, particularly in 

272
00:14:16,000 --> 00:14:19,200
public schools, and served as a 
catalyst for the civil rights 

273
00:14:19,200 --> 00:14:21,720
movement. 
The case signified a shift in 

274
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:25,160
the interpretation of the Equal 
Protection Clause, emphasizing 

275
00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:27,920
that state imposed segregation 
was incompatible with a 

276
00:14:27,920 --> 00:14:30,680
constitutional guarantee of 
equal protection. 

277
00:14:31,160 --> 00:14:35,320
Loving V Virginia, 1967. 
In Loving V Virginia, the 

278
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:38,280
Supreme Court struck down 
Virginia's anti miscegenation 

279
00:14:38,280 --> 00:14:40,840
laws, which prohibited 
interracial marriage. 

280
00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:43,760
The Court held that such laws 
were based on racial 

281
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:46,920
discrimination and violated the 
Equal Protection Clause. 

282
00:14:47,400 --> 00:14:50,280
This decision was a critical 
step in dismantling legal 

283
00:14:50,280 --> 00:14:52,840
barriers to interracial 
relationships and further 

284
00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:55,880
established the principle that 
racial classifications must be 

285
00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:58,440
subjected to the strictest 
scrutiny under the law. 

286
00:14:58,960 --> 00:15:02,880
See affirmative action and race.
Affirmative action policies have

287
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:05,680
been a focal point of equal 
protection jurisprudence, 

288
00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:08,920
particularly when these policies
involve race as a factor in 

289
00:15:08,920 --> 00:15:11,880
decision making processes such 
as college admissions. 

290
00:15:12,320 --> 00:15:15,080
The courts have had to balance 
the need to address historical 

291
00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:17,640
discrimination with the 
constitutional prohibition 

292
00:15:17,640 --> 00:15:20,920
against racial classifications 
that perpetuate inequality. 

293
00:15:21,400 --> 00:15:25,680
Regions of the University of 
California, Vibaki, 1978. 

294
00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:29,480
In Baki, the Supreme Court 
addressed the constitutionality 

295
00:15:29,480 --> 00:15:32,280
of race based affirmative action
in college admissions. 

296
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:35,640
The court struck down the use of
racial quotas, but allowed for 

297
00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:38,840
race to be considered as one 
factor in admissions decisions. 

298
00:15:39,280 --> 00:15:42,120
The decision set the precedent 
that while race can play a role 

299
00:15:42,120 --> 00:15:45,280
in achieving diversity, it 
cannot be the sole determinant 

300
00:15:45,440 --> 00:15:48,320
and any consideration of race 
must be part of a holistic 

301
00:15:48,320 --> 00:15:52,200
review process. 
Crutter V Bollinger, 2003. 

302
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:55,600
In Gruder V Bollinger, the 
Supreme Court upheld the 

303
00:15:55,600 --> 00:15:58,280
University of Michigan Law 
School's affirmative action 

304
00:15:58,280 --> 00:16:00,720
program. 
The Court found that the use of 

305
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:03,840
race is one factor in a holistic
admissions process, served a 

306
00:16:03,840 --> 00:16:07,160
compelling interest in achieving
diversity in higher education, 

307
00:16:07,320 --> 00:16:09,720
and was narrowly tailored to 
achieve that interest. 

308
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:12,960
This decision reinforced the 
notion that diversity is a 

309
00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:16,080
legitimate goal that can justify
the consideration of race under 

310
00:16:16,080 --> 00:16:19,640
the Equal Protection Clause. 
Parents involved in Community 

311
00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:24,440
Schools The Seattle School 
district #1 2007, the Supreme 

312
00:16:24,440 --> 00:16:27,800
Court in parents Involved struck
down race based assignment plans

313
00:16:27,800 --> 00:16:30,600
in public schools. 
The Court held that the plans 

314
00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:33,480
were not narrowly tailored to 
achieve the goal of diversity 

315
00:16:33,480 --> 00:16:36,000
and thus violated the Equal 
Protection Clause. 

316
00:16:36,440 --> 00:16:39,240
This decision highlighted the 
limitations of race based 

317
00:16:39,240 --> 00:16:42,560
policies, emphasizing the need 
for careful scrutiny to ensure 

318
00:16:42,560 --> 00:16:45,320
that such policies do not lead 
to unconstitutional 

319
00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:49,920
discrimination. 3 Equal 
Protection and Gender A 

320
00:16:49,920 --> 00:16:53,760
Historical Context Gender 
discrimination emerged as a 

321
00:16:53,760 --> 00:16:56,840
significant area of equal 
protection jurisprudence in the 

322
00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:00,440
20th century. 
Initially, laws and practices 

323
00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:03,160
that treated individuals 
differently based on gender were

324
00:17:03,160 --> 00:17:06,920
often accepted as natural or 
justified by traditional roles. 

325
00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:10,640
However, as the women's rights 
movement gained momentum, the 

326
00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:13,560
courts began to apply increased 
scrutiny to gender based 

327
00:17:13,560 --> 00:17:16,880
classifications, leading to 
greater gender equality under 

328
00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:18,920
the law. 
The key cases. 

329
00:17:19,480 --> 00:17:21,800
Read V. 
Read 1971. 

330
00:17:21,800 --> 00:17:23,680
Read V. 
Read marked the first time the 

331
00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:27,000
Supreme Court applied the Equal 
Protection Clause to strike down

332
00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:30,760
a gender based classification. 
The Court invalidated a state 

333
00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:33,400
law that preferred men over 
women as administrators of 

334
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:36,280
estates, ruling that the law was
an arbitrary and 

335
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:38,720
unconstitutional gender 
discrimination. 

336
00:17:39,160 --> 00:17:42,240
This case laid the groundwork 
for future challenges to gender 

337
00:17:42,240 --> 00:17:45,320
based discrimination under the 
Equal Protection Clause. 

338
00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:50,240
Craig V Boren, 1976. 
In Craig V Boren, the Supreme 

339
00:17:50,240 --> 00:17:53,160
Court established intermediate 
scrutinies, the standard for 

340
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:55,720
evaluating gender based 
classifications. 

341
00:17:56,160 --> 00:17:58,920
The Court struck down an 
Oklahoma law that established 

342
00:17:58,920 --> 00:18:01,880
different drinking ages for men 
and women, finding that the 

343
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:05,280
gender based classification was 
not substantially related to an 

344
00:18:05,280 --> 00:18:08,760
important government interest. 
This case was significant in 

345
00:18:08,760 --> 00:18:11,840
setting a higher standard of 
review for gender discrimination

346
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:15,960
cases. 
United States V Virginia, 1996. 

347
00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:19,000
United States V Virginia 
involved the Virginia Military 

348
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:22,360
Institute, the Mia state 
supported institution that 

349
00:18:22,360 --> 00:18:25,960
excluded women from admission. 
The Supreme Court struck down 

350
00:18:25,960 --> 00:18:29,000
the exclusion, applying 
intermediate scrutiny and 

351
00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:31,400
finding that Virginia's 
justification for the gender 

352
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:34,000
based exclusion did not meet the
required standard. 

353
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:37,200
The Court ruled that gender 
based classifications must 

354
00:18:37,200 --> 00:18:40,120
demonstrate an exceedingly 
persuasive justification, 

355
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:42,960
further solidifying the 
application of intermediate 

356
00:18:42,960 --> 00:18:45,320
scrutiny and gender 
discrimination cases. 

357
00:18:45,760 --> 00:18:47,760
See Gender Based Affirmative 
action. 

358
00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:51,400
Affirmative action policies 
based on gender have also been 

359
00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:54,240
subject to legal challenges 
under the Equal Protection 

360
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:56,280
Clause. 
The courts have applied 

361
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:59,240
intermediate scrutiny to these 
policies, requiring the 

362
00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:01,960
government to show that the 
classification is substantially 

363
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:04,120
related to an important 
government interest. 

364
00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:09,640
Johnson V Transportation Agency,
Santa Clara County, 1987. 

365
00:19:10,120 --> 00:19:13,080
In Johnson, the Supreme Court 
upheld the gender based 

366
00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:15,800
affirmative action plan that 
promoted a woman over a more 

367
00:19:15,800 --> 00:19:18,600
qualified man. 
The Court found that the plan 

368
00:19:18,600 --> 00:19:21,680
was substantially related to the
important government interest of

369
00:19:21,680 --> 00:19:25,560
remedying past discrimination. 
This case demonstrated that 

370
00:19:25,560 --> 00:19:28,440
gender based affirmative action 
policies could withstand 

371
00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:31,080
constitutional scrutiny if they 
were designed to address 

372
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:34,840
historical disparities. 
Mississippi University for Women

373
00:19:34,840 --> 00:19:39,240
V Hogan, 1982. 
In Hogan, the Supreme Court 

374
00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:42,160
struck down a state law that 
excluded men from enrolling in a

375
00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:44,360
nursing program at a State 
University. 

376
00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:47,480
The Court found that the 
exclusion was not substantially 

377
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,760
related to the goal of remedying
past discrimination and thus 

378
00:19:50,760 --> 00:19:52,880
violated the Equal Protection 
Clause. 

379
00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:56,000
This case highlighted the 
limitations of gender based 

380
00:19:56,000 --> 00:19:59,040
affirmative action policies, 
emphasizing that they must be 

381
00:19:59,040 --> 00:20:01,840
carefully tailored to meet 
constitutional standards. 

382
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:06,520
For equal protection and other 
classifications, asexual 

383
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:11,240
orientation discrimination based
on sexual orientation has become

384
00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:14,200
an increasingly significant area
of equal protection 

385
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:16,360
jurisprudence. 
While the courts have 

386
00:20:16,360 --> 00:20:19,440
traditionally applied rational 
basis review the laws that 

387
00:20:19,440 --> 00:20:23,320
classify individuals based on 
sexual orientation, recent 

388
00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:26,240
decisions suggest a trend toward
heightened scrutiny for such 

389
00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:30,440
classifications. 
Roamer V Evans, 1996. 

390
00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:34,400
In Romer V Evans, the Supreme 
Court struck down a Colorado 

391
00:20:34,400 --> 00:20:37,760
constitutional amendment that 
prohibited legal protections for

392
00:20:37,760 --> 00:20:40,480
individuals based on sexual 
orientation. 

393
00:20:40,920 --> 00:20:43,680
The Court applied rational basis
review and found that the 

394
00:20:43,680 --> 00:20:46,360
amendment lacked a legitimate 
government interest and was 

395
00:20:46,360 --> 00:20:48,840
motivated by animus toward a 
particular group. 

396
00:20:49,320 --> 00:20:53,560
This decision was a significant 
victory for LGBTQ plus rights, 

397
00:20:53,760 --> 00:20:56,600
marking one of the first times 
the Court recognized that laws 

398
00:20:56,600 --> 00:20:59,680
discriminating against 
individuals based on sexual 

399
00:20:59,680 --> 00:21:02,960
orientation could be subject to 
judicial review under the Equal 

400
00:21:02,960 --> 00:21:06,960
Protection Clause. 
Lawrence B Texas, 2003. 

401
00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:11,200
In Lawrence B Texas, the Supreme
Court struck down a Texas law 

402
00:21:11,200 --> 00:21:15,000
criminalizing consensual sexual 
conduct between same sex adults,

403
00:21:15,200 --> 00:21:18,080
recognizing that the law 
violated the Equal Protection 

404
00:21:18,080 --> 00:21:21,840
Clause and the right to privacy.
The Court's decision overturned 

405
00:21:21,840 --> 00:21:26,040
its earlier ruling in Bowers V 
Hardwick 1986 and marked a 

406
00:21:26,040 --> 00:21:30,000
significant step forward in the 
legal recognition of LGBTQ plus 

407
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:32,040
rights. 
The case was based on a 

408
00:21:32,040 --> 00:21:35,320
combination of substantive due 
process and equal protection 

409
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:38,560
principles, emphasizing that the
government cannot intrude on the

410
00:21:38,560 --> 00:21:41,600
private lives of individuals 
without a compelling reason. 

411
00:21:42,080 --> 00:21:47,560
Obergefell V Hodges, 2015 In 
Obergefell V Hodges, the Supreme

412
00:21:47,560 --> 00:21:50,480
Court recognized the right of 
same sex couples to marry, 

413
00:21:50,640 --> 00:21:53,440
holding that state laws 
prohibiting same sex marriage 

414
00:21:53,440 --> 00:21:57,200
violated the Equal Protection in
Due Process Clauses of the 14th 

415
00:21:57,200 --> 00:21:59,840
Amendment. 
This landmark decision was a 

416
00:21:59,840 --> 00:22:02,960
monumental victory for marriage 
equality and solidified the 

417
00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:06,600
legal status of LGBTQ plus 
individuals in the United 

418
00:22:06,600 --> 00:22:09,040
States. 
The Court's ruling underscored 

419
00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:12,080
the principle that laws denying 
individuals the right to marry 

420
00:22:12,080 --> 00:22:16,800
based on sexual orientation were
unconstitutional be disability. 

421
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:20,280
Discrimination based on 
disability is another important 

422
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:22,720
area of equal protection 
jurisprudence. 

423
00:22:23,160 --> 00:22:26,360
While the courts typically apply
rational basis review to laws 

424
00:22:26,360 --> 00:22:29,960
that classify individuals based 
on disability, the Americans 

425
00:22:29,960 --> 00:22:33,840
with Disabilities Act, ADA, 
provides additional protections 

426
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:37,040
against discrimination and has 
been instrumental in advancing 

427
00:22:37,040 --> 00:22:39,280
the rights of individuals with 
disabilities. 

428
00:22:39,720 --> 00:22:44,400
Cleveland V Cleburne Living 
Center, 1985 In Cleveland V 

429
00:22:44,400 --> 00:22:47,720
Cleburne Living Center, the 
Supreme Court struck down a city

430
00:22:47,720 --> 00:22:50,480
ordinance that required a 
special permit for a group home 

431
00:22:50,480 --> 00:22:53,080
for individuals with 
intellectual disabilities. 

432
00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:55,800
The Court found that the 
ordinance lacked a rational 

433
00:22:55,800 --> 00:22:58,640
basis and violated the Equal 
Protection Clause. 

434
00:22:59,120 --> 00:23:01,840
The decision was significant in 
recognizing that laws 

435
00:23:01,840 --> 00:23:04,680
discriminating against 
individuals with disabilities 

436
00:23:04,680 --> 00:23:07,840
must be subject to judicial 
scrutiny, even if they do not 

437
00:23:07,840 --> 00:23:09,680
warrant the highest level of 
scrutiny. 

438
00:23:10,160 --> 00:23:13,240
Board of Trustees at the 
University of Alabama V Garrett,

439
00:23:13,360 --> 00:23:16,600
2001. 
In Garrett, the Supreme Court 

440
00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:19,720
held that states could not be 
sued for monetary damages under 

441
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,960
the ADA, finding that the law's 
abrogation of state sovereign 

442
00:23:22,960 --> 00:23:26,240
immunity was not justified by a 
pattern of unconstitutional 

443
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:29,200
discrimination. 
The decision was a set back for 

444
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:32,680
disability rights advocates, but
also highlighted the limitations

445
00:23:32,680 --> 00:23:35,800
of the Equal Protection Clause 
in addressing issues related to 

446
00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:40,000
state sovereignty. 
C Age discrimination based on 

447
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:43,720
ages generally subject to 
rational basis review as age is 

448
00:23:43,720 --> 00:23:46,600
not considered a suspect 
classification under the Equal 

449
00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:50,440
Protection Clause. 
However, age discrimination laws

450
00:23:50,600 --> 00:23:54,960
such as the Age Discrimination 
in Employment Act, ADEA, provide

451
00:23:54,960 --> 00:23:58,120
additional protections against 
age based discrimination. 

452
00:23:58,560 --> 00:24:03,360
Massachusetts Board of 
Retirement B Merga 1976 In 

453
00:24:03,360 --> 00:24:07,000
Merga, the Supreme Court of held
a state law that required police

454
00:24:07,000 --> 00:24:10,320
officers to retire at age 50, 
finding that the law was 

455
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:13,040
rationally related to the 
state's interest in maintaining 

456
00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:16,800
a physically fit police force. 
The Court applied rational basis

457
00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:20,160
review, emphasizing that age 
classifications are generally 

458
00:24:20,160 --> 00:24:22,880
presumed to be constitutional 
unless they are shown to be 

459
00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:26,240
arbitrary or irrational. 
Kimmel V Florida Board of 

460
00:24:26,240 --> 00:24:30,000
Regents, 2000. 
In Kimmel, the Supreme Court 

461
00:24:30,000 --> 00:24:33,120
held that the Idea's abrogation 
of state sovereign immunity was 

462
00:24:33,120 --> 00:24:36,200
not justified by a pattern of 
unconstitutional age 

463
00:24:36,200 --> 00:24:39,560
discrimination limiting the 
ability of individuals to sue 

464
00:24:39,560 --> 00:24:42,120
states for age discrimination 
under the IDEA. 

465
00:24:42,600 --> 00:24:44,800
The decision reinforced the 
principle that age 

466
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:48,200
discrimination is subject to a 
lower level of judicial scrutiny

467
00:24:48,200 --> 00:24:51,400
and that states retain certain 
immunities from federal lawsuits

468
00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:54,960
under the 11th Amendment. 
The Equal Protection Clause has 

469
00:24:54,960 --> 00:24:57,840
been a powerful tool in the 
fight against discrimination, 

470
00:24:58,000 --> 00:25:01,440
helping to dismantle systemic 
inequalities and promote justice

471
00:25:01,440 --> 00:25:05,640
for all individuals, regardless 
of race, gender, sexual 

472
00:25:05,640 --> 00:25:10,320
orientation, disability, or age.
The judiciary's application of 

473
00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:14,280
different levels of scrutiny, 
rational basis, intermediate and

474
00:25:14,280 --> 00:25:17,600
strict scrutiny, has provided a 
framework for analyzing the 

475
00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:21,080
constitutionality of laws and 
government actions that classify

476
00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:23,360
individuals based on these 
characteristics. 

477
00:25:23,840 --> 00:25:26,960
Despite the progress made in 
achieving greater equality, the 

478
00:25:26,960 --> 00:25:30,040
struggle for equal protection 
under the law is ongoing. 

479
00:25:30,560 --> 00:25:34,440
Affirmative action policies, in 
particular, continue to generate

480
00:25:34,440 --> 00:25:37,720
debate and legal challenges as 
society grapples with the legacy

481
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:40,720
of historical discrimination and
the need for diversity and 

482
00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:43,600
inclusion. 
As the legal landscape evolves, 

483
00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:46,600
the Equal Protection Clause will
remain a cornerstone of 

484
00:25:46,600 --> 00:25:49,760
constitutional jurisprudence, 
ensuring that the promise of 

485
00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:53,400
equal protection is fulfilled 
for all individuals, regardless 

486
00:25:53,400 --> 00:25:57,000
of their background or identity.
Summary of Chapter 10. 

487
00:25:57,120 --> 00:26:00,880
Equal Protection Chapter 10 
explores the application of the 

488
00:26:00,880 --> 00:26:04,600
Equal Protection Clause of the 
14th Amendment, which guarantees

489
00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:07,200
that no person shall be denied 
the equal protection of the 

490
00:26:07,200 --> 00:26:09,560
laws. 
This chapter delves into how 

491
00:26:09,560 --> 00:26:12,720
courts interpret and enforce 
this principle, focusing on 

492
00:26:12,720 --> 00:26:15,280
different levels of judicial 
scrutiny, issues of 

493
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:18,160
discrimination, and the 
implementation of affirmative 

494
00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:21,040
action across various 
classifications such as race, 

495
00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:26,880
gender, sexual orientation, 
disability, and age. 1 Levels of

496
00:26:26,880 --> 00:26:30,960
scrutiny The judiciary employs 3
main levels of scrutiny to 

497
00:26:31,000 --> 00:26:33,680
assess whether a law or 
government action violates the 

498
00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:37,960
Equal Protection Clause. 
Rational basis review This is 

499
00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:40,880
the most lenient standard 
applied in cases that do not 

500
00:26:40,880 --> 00:26:43,920
involve fundamental rights or 
suspect classifications. 

501
00:26:44,400 --> 00:26:46,920
Laws are upheld if they are 
rationally related to a 

502
00:26:46,920 --> 00:26:50,880
legitimate government interest. 
Intermediate Scrutiny This is a 

503
00:26:50,880 --> 00:26:53,720
more rigorous standard applied 
to cases involving gender 

504
00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:56,080
discrimination or 
classifications based on 

505
00:26:56,080 --> 00:26:58,880
legitimacy. 
Laws must be substantially 

506
00:26:58,880 --> 00:27:01,120
related to an important 
government interest to be 

507
00:27:01,120 --> 00:27:03,760
upheld. 
Strict scrutiny The most 

508
00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:07,560
stringent standard used in cases
involving fundamental rights or 

509
00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:11,840
suspect classifications like 
race or national origin laws, 

510
00:27:11,840 --> 00:27:14,480
must be narrowly tailored to 
achieve a compelling government 

511
00:27:14,480 --> 00:27:19,640
interest. 2 Discrimination and 
Affirmative Action The chapter 

512
00:27:19,640 --> 00:27:22,560
also discusses how the Equal 
Protection Clause addresses 

513
00:27:22,560 --> 00:27:25,440
discrimination and the 
constitutionality of affirmative

514
00:27:25,440 --> 00:27:29,240
action policies. 
Race Discrimination The courts 

515
00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:32,720
apply strict scrutiny to any 
laws or policies that classify 

516
00:27:32,720 --> 00:27:36,560
individuals based on race. 
Landmark cases like Brown V. 

517
00:27:36,560 --> 00:27:39,720
Board of Education and Loving V.
Virginia demonstrate how the 

518
00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:42,360
courts have struck down laws 
that perpetuate racial 

519
00:27:42,360 --> 00:27:45,560
inequality. 
Gender Discrimination Gender 

520
00:27:45,560 --> 00:27:48,080
based classifications are 
subject to intermediate 

521
00:27:48,080 --> 00:27:51,000
scrutiny. 
Significant cases such as Read 

522
00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:53,280
V. 
Read in United States V Virginia

523
00:27:53,280 --> 00:27:57,080
have shaped the legal landscape 
for gender equality affirmative 

524
00:27:57,080 --> 00:27:58,920
action. 
The chapter examines the 

525
00:27:58,920 --> 00:28:01,800
contentious legal debates 
surrounding affirmative action, 

526
00:28:01,960 --> 00:28:04,640
particularly in higher education
and employment. 

527
00:28:05,080 --> 00:28:08,560
Cases like Regents of the 
University of California Vidbaki

528
00:28:08,560 --> 00:28:10,440
and Gretter V. 
Bollinger illustrate the 

529
00:28:10,440 --> 00:28:13,320
delicate balance the court 
strike between remedying past 

530
00:28:13,320 --> 00:28:18,040
discrimination and avoiding new 
forms of inequality. 3 Equal 

531
00:28:18,040 --> 00:28:21,920
Protection and Race Gender and 
Other Classifications The 

532
00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:25,040
chapter further explores how the
equal protection clause has been

533
00:28:25,040 --> 00:28:27,400
applied to various forms of 
discrimination. 

534
00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:32,120
Race Beyond the classic cases of
racial segregation, the chapter 

535
00:28:32,120 --> 00:28:34,800
discusses how the courts have 
dealt with affirmative action 

536
00:28:34,800 --> 00:28:37,920
and racial classifications in 
education and employment. 

537
00:28:38,360 --> 00:28:40,640
Gender. 
It examines the evolution of 

538
00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:43,720
gender discrimination law and 
the impact of major Supreme 

539
00:28:43,720 --> 00:28:46,240
Court decisions in advancing 
gender equality. 

540
00:28:46,720 --> 00:28:50,640
Sexual Orientation. 
Recent advancements in LGBTQ 

541
00:28:50,640 --> 00:28:53,880
plus rights are highlighted, 
with cases like Lawrence V. 

542
00:28:53,880 --> 00:28:56,720
Texas and Obergefell V. 
Hodges demonstrating the 

543
00:28:56,720 --> 00:29:00,080
application of equal protection 
to sexual orientation. 

544
00:29:00,520 --> 00:29:04,120
Disability and age The chapter 
discusses how the courts address

545
00:29:04,120 --> 00:29:07,280
discrimination based on 
disability and age, typically 

546
00:29:07,280 --> 00:29:10,120
applying a more deferential 
standard but recognizing the 

547
00:29:10,120 --> 00:29:12,360
importance of protecting 
vulnerable groups. 

548
00:29:12,840 --> 00:29:16,800
Conclusion Chapter 10 provides a
comprehensive overview of the 

549
00:29:16,800 --> 00:29:19,800
Equal Protection Clause and its 
critical role in promoting 

550
00:29:19,800 --> 00:29:22,720
justice and equality. 
Through various levels of 

551
00:29:22,720 --> 00:29:26,440
scrutiny, the judiciary ensures 
that laws and government actions

552
00:29:26,440 --> 00:29:29,400
do not arbitrarily or unjustly 
discriminate against 

553
00:29:29,400 --> 00:29:32,160
individuals. 
The chapter underscores the 

554
00:29:32,160 --> 00:29:35,280
ongoing challenges and debates 
surrounding affirmative action 

555
00:29:35,280 --> 00:29:37,760
and the application of equal 
protection to various 

556
00:29:37,760 --> 00:29:41,280
classifications, reflecting the 
evolving nature of civil rights 

557
00:29:41,280 --> 00:29:44,120
in America. 
Chapter 10 explores the profound

558
00:29:44,120 --> 00:29:47,200
impact of the Equal Protection 
Clause on American law and 

559
00:29:47,200 --> 00:29:49,720
society. 
By examining the levels of 

560
00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:52,440
scrutiny, the role of 
discrimination and affirmative 

561
00:29:52,440 --> 00:29:55,800
action, and the application of 
equal protection, and addressing

562
00:29:55,800 --> 00:29:59,800
issues related to race, gender, 
and other classifications, this 

563
00:29:59,800 --> 00:30:02,920
chapter provides a comprehensive
understanding of how the Equal 

564
00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:06,320
Protection Clause has shaped the
fight for equality and justice. 

565
00:30:06,800 --> 00:30:09,640
The principles of equal 
protection continue to evolve as

566
00:30:09,640 --> 00:30:12,920
society confronts new challenges
and debates over the meaning and

567
00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,120
scope of equality. 
The ongoing struggle to balance 

568
00:30:16,120 --> 00:30:19,160
individual rights with societal 
interests underscores the 

569
00:30:19,160 --> 00:30:22,200
enduring importance of the Equal
Protection Clause in the quest 

570
00:30:22,200 --> 00:30:24,440
for a more just and inclusive 
society.