1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:04,640
Constitutional Law Chapter 10 
Equal Protection Introduction 

2
00:00:05,120 --> 00:00:08,600
The Equal Protection Clause, 
enshrined in the 14th Amendment 

3
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:11,600
of the US Constitution, is one 
of the most significant 

4
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:15,280
provisions in American law. 
It prohibits states from denying

5
00:00:15,280 --> 00:00:18,040
any person within their 
jurisdiction equal protection 

6
00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:21,400
under the law, establishing a 
legal foundation for challenging

7
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:24,000
discriminatory practices and 
ensuring that of all, 

8
00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:28,000
individuals are treated fairly. 
Over time, the interpretation of

9
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:31,360
the Equal Protection Clause has 
evolved, with courts developing 

10
00:00:31,360 --> 00:00:34,600
various standards or levels of 
scrutiny, to assess the 

11
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:38,040
constitutionality of laws that 
classify individuals based on 

12
00:00:38,040 --> 00:00:41,240
certain characteristics. 
These levels of scrutiny, 

13
00:00:41,400 --> 00:00:44,560
rational basis review, 
intermediate scrutiny, and 

14
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:47,560
strict scrutiny serve as 
analytical frameworks that 

15
00:00:47,560 --> 00:00:50,520
courts use to determine whether 
a law or government action 

16
00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:52,600
violates the Equal Protection 
Clause. 

17
00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:56,120
Each level of scrutiny reflects 
a different degree of judicial 

18
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:59,240
rigor, depending on the nature 
of the classification and the 

19
00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:01,880
rights involved. 
This chapter delves into the 

20
00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:05,200
nuances of these levels of 
scrutiny, examining how they are

21
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:08,880
applied, their significance, key
judicial decisions, and the 

22
00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:13,840
criticisms they have attracted. 
1 Levels of Scrutiny Rational 

23
00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:18,560
basis, Intermediate and strict 
scrutiny The judiciary employs 3

24
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:22,040
primary levels of scrutiny to 
evaluate the constitutionality 

25
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:24,760
of government actions or laws 
that potentially violate the 

26
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:28,280
Equal Protection Clause. 
These levels reflect varying 

27
00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:30,960
degrees of skepticism about the 
government's reasons for 

28
00:01:30,960 --> 00:01:34,040
enacting a particular law and 
the potential impact of the law 

29
00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:37,520
on individual rights. 
The level of scrutiny applied is

30
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:39,880
crucial because it often 
determines the outcome of the 

31
00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:42,640
case. 
A Rational basis review 

32
00:01:43,200 --> 00:01:47,200
Definition and application. 
Rational basis review is the 

33
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:49,720
most deferential standard of 
judicial review. 

34
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:53,440
Under this standard, a law or 
government action will be upheld

35
00:01:53,440 --> 00:01:56,680
if it is rationally related to a
legitimate government interest. 

36
00:01:57,120 --> 00:02:00,040
The government does not need to 
articulate the specific reason 

37
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:02,360
behind the law. 
It is enough that the law could 

38
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:04,440
conceivably serve a legitimate 
purpose. 

39
00:02:04,880 --> 00:02:07,520
This standard is highly 
deferential to legislative 

40
00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:10,639
judgments and assumes the law is
valid unless the challenger can 

41
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:14,760
prove otherwise. 
Scope and use Rational basis 

42
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:18,160
review is typically applied in 
cases involving classifications 

43
00:02:18,160 --> 00:02:21,280
that do not affect fundamental 
rights or involve suspect or 

44
00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:25,360
quasi suspect classifications, 
such as economic regulations, 

45
00:02:25,520 --> 00:02:28,600
social welfare laws, and 
classifications based on 

46
00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:31,920
characteristics like age, 
disability, or income. 

47
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:35,960
Given its deferential nature, 
laws subject to rational basis 

48
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:39,080
review are rarely struck down as
the courts are generally 

49
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:41,880
reluctant to second guess 
legislative decisions in these 

50
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:46,040
areas. 
Key cases Railway Express Agency

51
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:50,760
V New York, 1949. 
In this case, the Supreme Court 

52
00:02:50,760 --> 00:02:53,240
upheld the New York City 
ordinance that prohibited 

53
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:56,360
advertising on vehicles except 
for advertisements of the 

54
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,320
vehicle owners business. 
The court reasoned that the 

55
00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:02,200
ordinance was rationally related
to the city's legitimate 

56
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:05,600
interest in Traffic Safety as it
sought to reduce distractions 

57
00:03:05,600 --> 00:03:08,920
that could lead to accidents. 
This decision illustrates the 

58
00:03:08,920 --> 00:03:12,240
leniency of rational basis 
review, as the court accepted 

59
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:15,120
the city's reasoning without 
demanding empirical evidence of 

60
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:18,480
the law's effectiveness. 
Williamson being the Optical of 

61
00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:23,760
Oklahoma 1955, the Supreme Court
upheld an Oklahoma law that 

62
00:03:23,760 --> 00:03:26,800
prohibited opticians from 
fitting or duplicating lenses 

63
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:30,240
without a prescription from an 
ophthalmologist or optometrist. 

64
00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:33,360
The court found that the law was
rationally related to the 

65
00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:35,520
state's interest in protecting 
public health. 

66
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:38,680
Despite acknowledging that the 
law might be overly restrictive 

67
00:03:38,680 --> 00:03:42,680
or even unnecessary, this case 
exemplifies the broad discretion

68
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:45,880
that legislatures have under 
rational basis review to enact 

69
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:49,480
laws that may seem arbitrary or 
inefficient as long as there is 

70
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:51,560
a conceivable legitimate 
purpose. 

71
00:03:52,040 --> 00:03:56,280
Criticisms Critics of rational 
basis review argue that it 

72
00:03:56,280 --> 00:03:59,680
provides too much deference to 
government actions allowing laws

73
00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:03,000
that may perpetuate inequality 
or discrimination to stand. 

74
00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:06,680
This standard places a heavy 
burden on challengers who must 

75
00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:09,680
demonstrate that a law is not 
merely misguided or unfair, but 

76
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:13,120
wholly irrational or unrelated 
to any legitimate purpose. 

77
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:17,440
As a result, rational basis 
review can sometimes uphold laws

78
00:04:17,440 --> 00:04:21,079
that disproportionately impact 
marginalized groups or reinforce

79
00:04:21,079 --> 00:04:24,600
systemic inequalities, as courts
are reluctant to overturn 

80
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,680
legislative decisions unless 
they are clearly arbitrary. 

81
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,840
The Role of Hypothetical 
justifications One of the most 

82
00:04:31,840 --> 00:04:34,880
controversial aspects of 
rational basis review is the 

83
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:37,920
acceptance of hypothetical 
justifications for a law. 

84
00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:41,760
Courts often uphold laws under 
rational basis review by 

85
00:04:41,760 --> 00:04:44,080
speculating about potential 
reasons that could have 

86
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:47,120
motivated the legislature, even 
if those reasons were not 

87
00:04:47,120 --> 00:04:49,840
explicitly stated at the time 
the law was enacted. 

88
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:53,120
This approach further diminishes
the likelihood that a law will 

89
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,640
be struck down, as almost any 
conceivable justification can be

90
00:04:56,640 --> 00:04:59,680
deemed rational. 
Implications for Social and 

91
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:04,000
Economic Legislation Rational 
basis review plays a crucial 

92
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,440
role in upholding social and 
economic legislation, as it 

93
00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:10,120
allows States and the federal 
government to experiment with 

94
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:12,880
different regulatory approaches 
without constant judicial 

95
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:16,080
interference. 
However, this deference can also

96
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:19,200
enable governments to pass laws 
that disproportionately affect 

97
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,600
certain groups, particularly 
those with less political power,

98
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:25,240
under the guise of economic or 
social policy. 

99
00:05:25,760 --> 00:05:30,040
Notable Challenges Despite its 
deferential nature, there have 

100
00:05:30,040 --> 00:05:33,080
been instances where courts 
applying rational basis review 

101
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:35,360
have struck down laws that were 
deemed irrational. 

102
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:38,720
These cases are rare and 
typically involve laws that are 

103
00:05:38,720 --> 00:05:42,080
so arbitrary or capricious that 
they cannot be justified under 

104
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:44,520
any conceivable legitimate 
government interest. 

105
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:48,280
City of Cleburne B Cleburne 
Living Center, Incorporated, 

106
00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:53,200
1985 In this case, the Supreme 
Court struck down a city 

107
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:56,040
ordinance that required a 
special permit for a group home 

108
00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:58,720
for individuals with 
intellectual disabilities. 

109
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:01,160
The court found that the 
ordinance was based on 

110
00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:04,400
irrational prejudices and 
stereotypes about individuals 

111
00:06:04,400 --> 00:06:07,720
with disabilities rather than a 
legitimate government interest. 

112
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:11,120
This decision illustrates that 
even under rational basis 

113
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:14,520
review, courts may intervene 
when a law is clearly motivated 

114
00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:19,280
by bias rather than reason. 
Roamer V Evans, 1996. 

115
00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:23,120
The Supreme Court invalidated a 
Colorado constitutional 

116
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:25,880
amendment that prohibited any 
legal protections for 

117
00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:28,720
individuals based on their 
sexual orientation. 

118
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:31,480
The court found that the 
amendment lacked a rational 

119
00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:35,440
basis and was motivated by 
animus toward LGBTQ plus 

120
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:38,240
individuals, which could not 
constitute a legitimate 

121
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:41,800
government interest. 
Summary of Rational Basis review

122
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:45,680
Rational basis review is a low 
threshold for the government to 

123
00:06:45,680 --> 00:06:48,840
meet, and it generally results 
in the upholding of laws that 

124
00:06:48,840 --> 00:06:51,120
are challenged on equal 
protection grounds. 

125
00:06:51,640 --> 00:06:55,040
However, the standard is not 
entirely toothless, as it can be

126
00:06:55,040 --> 00:06:58,200
used to strike down laws that 
are rational or motivated by 

127
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:00,960
prejudice. 
The standards broad deference to

128
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:03,920
legislative judgment reflects a 
respect for the separation of 

129
00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:07,200
powers, but it also raises 
concerns about the potential for

130
00:07:07,200 --> 00:07:10,440
perpetuating inequality through 
ostensibly neutral laws. 

131
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:14,680
The intermediate scrutiny 
definition and application 

132
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:18,440
Intermediate scrutiny is a more 
rigorous standard of judicial 

133
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,480
review than rational basis 
review, but less stringent than 

134
00:07:21,480 --> 00:07:24,840
strict scrutiny. 
Under intermediate scrutiny, a 

135
00:07:24,840 --> 00:07:27,920
law or government action will be
upheld if it is substantially 

136
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:30,080
related to an important 
government interest. 

137
00:07:30,520 --> 00:07:32,920
This means that the government 
must demonstrate a close 

138
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:35,800
connection between the law and 
the important objective it seeks

139
00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:38,680
to achieve, though it does not 
need to be as narrowly tailored 

140
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:43,000
as under strict scrutiny. 
Scope and use Intermediate 

141
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:46,240
scrutiny is primarily applied in
cases involving gender based 

142
00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:50,920
classifications, legitimacy, and
in some instances, sexual 

143
00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:53,800
orientation. 
It strikes a balance between 

144
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:56,920
deference to the government and 
protection of individual rights,

145
00:07:57,080 --> 00:07:59,680
requiring a stronger 
justification for laws that 

146
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:02,760
classify individuals based on 
these characteristics than would

147
00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:05,320
be necessary under rational 
basis review. 

148
00:08:05,840 --> 00:08:11,400
Key cases. 
Craig V Boren 1976, the Supreme 

149
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:14,000
Court applied intermediate 
scrutiny to strike down an 

150
00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:17,040
Oklahoma law that established 
different minimum drinking ages 

151
00:08:17,040 --> 00:08:20,400
for men 21 years and women 18 
years. 

152
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:23,600
The state argued that the law 
was based on statistical 

153
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:27,640
evidence that men between 18 and
21 were more likely to engage in

154
00:08:27,640 --> 00:08:29,600
drunk driving than women of the 
same age. 

155
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:33,320
However, the court found that 
the gender based classification 

156
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:36,400
was not substantially related to
the state's interest in Traffic 

157
00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:39,400
Safety, as the evidence 
presented was insufficient to 

158
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:42,960
justify the disparity. 
United States Fee, Virginia, 

159
00:08:43,159 --> 00:08:46,840
1996. 
In this landmark case, the 

160
00:08:46,840 --> 00:08:49,680
Supreme Court struck down 
Virginia's exclusion of women 

161
00:08:49,680 --> 00:08:51,640
from the Virginia Military 
Institute. 

162
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:54,440
BMIA State funded military 
college. 

163
00:08:54,960 --> 00:08:57,480
The court applied intermediate 
scrutiny and found that 

164
00:08:57,480 --> 00:09:00,520
Virginia's justification for the
gender based exclusion 

165
00:09:00,680 --> 00:09:04,360
preserving the unique character 
of VM is educational model did 

166
00:09:04,360 --> 00:09:07,880
not meet the required standard. 
The court emphasized that gender

167
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:10,880
based classifications must be 
supported by an exceedingly 

168
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:14,000
persuasive justification and 
cannot be based on over broad 

169
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:16,840
generalizations about the 
abilities or roles of men and 

170
00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:20,320
women. 
Criticisms While intermediate 

171
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:23,360
scrutiny is more protective of 
individual rights than rational 

172
00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:26,480
basis review, it has been 
criticized for allowing gender 

173
00:09:26,480 --> 00:09:29,040
based discrimination in certain 
circumstances. 

174
00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:32,240
Critics argue that the standards
flexibility can lead to 

175
00:09:32,240 --> 00:09:35,560
inconsistent application, with 
courts sometimes upholding 

176
00:09:35,560 --> 00:09:39,000
gender based classifications 
that may reinforce stereotypes 

177
00:09:39,000 --> 00:09:42,680
or perpetuate inequality. 
Additionally, some legal 

178
00:09:42,680 --> 00:09:45,440
scholars have called for the 
application of strict scrutiny 

179
00:09:45,440 --> 00:09:48,800
to gender based classifications,
arguing that gender should be 

180
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:51,920
treated as a suspect 
classification similar to race. 

181
00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:56,200
The Exceedingly Persuasive 
Justification Standard One of 

182
00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:59,760
the key elements of intermediate
scrutiny, particularly in gender

183
00:09:59,760 --> 00:10:02,840
discrimination cases, is the 
requirement that the government 

184
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:05,600
provide an exceedingly 
persuasive justification for the

185
00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:08,880
classification. 
This standard, articulated in 

186
00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:12,000
United States V Virginia, 
requires more than a simple 

187
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:14,920
rational connection between the 
law and the government interest.

188
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,320
It demands a robust and well 
substantiated explanation for 

189
00:10:18,320 --> 00:10:20,320
why the classification is 
necessary. 

190
00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:24,960
Applications beyond Gender While
intermediate scrutiny is most 

191
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:28,600
commonly associated with gender 
discrimination, it has also been

192
00:10:28,600 --> 00:10:31,280
applied to other 
classifications, such as those 

193
00:10:31,280 --> 00:10:34,840
based on legitimacy, the status 
of being born to married versus 

194
00:10:34,840 --> 00:10:39,240
unmarried parents, and, in some 
cases, sexual orientation. 

195
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,760
The use of intermediate scrutiny
in these contexts reflects the 

196
00:10:42,760 --> 00:10:45,920
Court's recognition that certain
classifications warrant greater 

197
00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:49,080
protection than others, even if 
they do not rise to the level of

198
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:51,200
suspect classifications like 
race. 

199
00:10:51,680 --> 00:10:53,960
Notable applications and 
extensions. 

200
00:10:54,640 --> 00:10:59,000
Clark V Jeter, 1988. 
The Supreme Court applied 

201
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:01,920
intermediate scrutiny to a 
Pennsylvania law that imposed a 

202
00:11:01,920 --> 00:11:04,960
six year statute of limitations 
on paternity suits. 

203
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:08,000
The court found that the laws 
classification based on 

204
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:11,240
legitimacy was not substantially
related to the state's interest 

205
00:11:11,240 --> 00:11:14,440
in preventing stale claims, as 
it unfairly discriminated 

206
00:11:14,440 --> 00:11:16,280
against children born out of 
wedlock. 

207
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:21,520
United States V Windsor, 2013. 
Although the Supreme Court did 

208
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:24,680
not explicitly state that it was
applying intermediate scrutiny 

209
00:11:24,680 --> 00:11:28,640
in this case, it struck down the
Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, 

210
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:31,720
which define marriage as between
one man and one woman for 

211
00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:34,920
federal purposes. 
The Court's analysis focused on 

212
00:11:34,920 --> 00:11:37,440
the lack of a sufficient 
justification for the law's 

213
00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:41,080
exclusion of same sex couples, 
leading some scholars to suggest

214
00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:43,960
that the Court applied a level 
of scrutiny akin to intermediate

215
00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:46,920
scrutiny. 
Summary of Intermediate Scrutiny

216
00:11:47,680 --> 00:11:50,960
Intermediate scrutiny occupies a
middle ground between rational 

217
00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:53,760
basis review and strict 
scrutiny, providing a more 

218
00:11:53,760 --> 00:11:57,320
robust examination of laws that 
classify individuals based on 

219
00:11:57,320 --> 00:11:59,800
characteristics like gender or 
legitimacy. 

220
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:03,280
While it is more protective of 
individual rights than rational 

221
00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:06,680
basis review, it is not as 
demanding as strict scrutiny, 

222
00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:09,960
allowing for some flexibility in
how the government justifies its

223
00:12:09,960 --> 00:12:12,480
actions. 
The standards emphasis on 

224
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:15,520
substantial relationships and 
important government interests 

225
00:12:15,520 --> 00:12:18,840
reflects a nuanced approach to 
balancing individual rights with

226
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:22,880
societal needs. 
See strict scrutiny definition 

227
00:12:22,880 --> 00:12:26,040
and application. 
Strict scrutiny is the most 

228
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:28,040
stringent standard of judicial 
review. 

229
00:12:28,560 --> 00:12:31,840
Under this standard, a law or 
government action will be upheld

230
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:34,360
only if it is narrowly tailored 
to achieve a compelling 

231
00:12:34,360 --> 00:12:37,120
government interest. 
This means that the government 

232
00:12:37,120 --> 00:12:40,240
must demonstrate that the law is
necessary to achieve a critical 

233
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:42,680
objective and that there are no 
less restrictive means 

234
00:12:42,680 --> 00:12:45,240
available. 
Strict scrutiny is often 

235
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:48,640
referred to as strict in theory 
but fatal in fact, as laws 

236
00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:51,560
subjected to this level of 
scrutiny are frequently struck 

237
00:12:51,560 --> 00:12:53,440
down. 
Scope and use. 

238
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:57,240
Strict scrutiny is applied in 
cases involving fundamental 

239
00:12:57,240 --> 00:13:00,640
rights such as the right to 
vote, the right to free speech, 

240
00:13:00,840 --> 00:13:03,760
and the right to privacy and 
suspect classifications, 

241
00:13:03,840 --> 00:13:06,960
including race, national origin,
and religion. 

242
00:13:07,400 --> 00:13:10,520
Because this standard is so 
demanding, laws subject to 

243
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:13,000
strict scrutiny are often 
invalidated unless the 

244
00:13:13,000 --> 00:13:15,360
government can provide an 
exceptionally compelling 

245
00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:17,760
justification. 
Key cases. 

246
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:24,080
Korematsu V United States, 1944 
In this controversial case, the 

247
00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:27,160
Supreme Court upheld the 
Interment of Japanese Americans 

248
00:13:27,160 --> 00:13:30,400
during World War 2 under strict 
scrutiny, finding that the 

249
00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:33,160
government's interest in 
national security was compelling

250
00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:35,520
enough to justify the racial 
classification. 

251
00:13:35,920 --> 00:13:38,800
The decision has since been 
widely criticized as a grave 

252
00:13:38,800 --> 00:13:41,680
injustice and a failure of the 
judiciary to protect civil 

253
00:13:41,680 --> 00:13:44,160
liberties in the face of 
governmental overreach. 

254
00:13:44,680 --> 00:13:47,760
Korematsu is often cited as an 
example of the dangers of 

255
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:50,160
deferring to the government in 
times of crisis. 

256
00:13:50,320 --> 00:13:53,760
Even under the most stringent 
standard of review, Loving V 

257
00:13:53,760 --> 00:13:58,920
Virginia 1967, the Supreme Court
applied strict scrutiny in 

258
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:02,120
striking down Virginia's anti 
miscegenation laws, which 

259
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:05,640
prohibited interracial marriage.
The court held that the state's 

260
00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:08,600
racial classification could not 
withstand the rigorous standard 

261
00:14:08,600 --> 00:14:11,400
of strict scrutiny as there was 
no compelling government 

262
00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:13,640
interest that justified the 
discrimination. 

263
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:17,520
Loving is a landmark case in 
equal protection jurisprudence 

264
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:20,560
and is widely celebrated for its
affirmation of the fundamental 

265
00:14:20,560 --> 00:14:25,520
right to marry criticisms. 
Strict scrutiny is often seen as

266
00:14:25,520 --> 00:14:28,200
a double edged sword. 
While it provides strong 

267
00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:30,520
protection for fundamental 
rights and suspect 

268
00:14:30,520 --> 00:14:34,000
classifications, critics argue 
that it can sometimes result in 

269
00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:36,760
the invalidation of laws that 
serve important societal 

270
00:14:36,760 --> 00:14:39,800
interests. 
Additionally, the application of

271
00:14:39,800 --> 00:14:42,800
strict scrutiny can be 
inconsistent, particularly in 

272
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:45,440
cases where the court is 
reluctant to strike down laws 

273
00:14:45,440 --> 00:14:48,440
related to national security or 
other critical government 

274
00:14:48,440 --> 00:14:51,080
interests. 
The standards demanding nature 

275
00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:54,560
can also discourage legislatures
from enacting laws that address 

276
00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:57,640
pressing social issues for fear 
that they will not survive 

277
00:14:57,640 --> 00:15:00,160
judicial review. 
The narrowly tailored 

278
00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:03,920
requirement A critical aspect of
strict scrutiny is the 

279
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:06,560
requirement that the law be 
narrowly tailored to achieve the

280
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:10,080
compelling government interest. 
This means that the law must be 

281
00:15:10,080 --> 00:15:12,960
as specific as possible in 
addressing the issue at hand 

282
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:16,240
without unnecessarily infringing
on individual rights. 

283
00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:19,800
If there are less restrictive 
alternatives available, the law 

284
00:15:19,800 --> 00:15:21,720
will not survive. 
Strict scrutiny. 

285
00:15:22,160 --> 00:15:26,200
Implications for Civil Rights 
and Liberties Strict scrutiny 

286
00:15:26,200 --> 00:15:29,280
plays a vital role in protecting
civil rights and liberties, 

287
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:33,000
particularly in cases involving 
racial discrimination, voting 

288
00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:36,960
rights, and freedom of speech. 
By subjecting laws that impact 

289
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:39,600
these fundamental rights to the 
highest level of judicial 

290
00:15:39,600 --> 00:15:42,760
scrutiny, the courts ensure that
any government action that 

291
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:45,880
infringes on these rights is 
justified by a truly compelling 

292
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:48,240
interest. 
Notable Extensions and 

293
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:54,560
Applications Shalvi Reno, 1993 
The Supreme Court applied strict

294
00:15:54,560 --> 00:15:57,720
scrutiny to a North Carolina 
redistricting plan that created 

295
00:15:57,720 --> 00:16:01,000
a majority minority district, 
finding that the plan's racial 

296
00:16:01,000 --> 00:16:03,760
gerrymandering required a 
compelling government interest 

297
00:16:03,760 --> 00:16:06,800
and narrow tailoring. 
The case highlights the Court's 

298
00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:09,440
concern with racial 
classifications in the electoral

299
00:16:09,440 --> 00:16:12,000
process and its commitment to 
ensuring that such 

300
00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:15,160
classifications are subject to 
the highest level of scrutiny. 

301
00:16:15,600 --> 00:16:20,120
Citizens United V FEC 2010 
Although the case primarily 

302
00:16:20,120 --> 00:16:23,600
involved First Amendment issues,
the Supreme Court's application 

303
00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:26,600
of strict scrutiny to campaign 
finance laws reflects the 

304
00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:29,960
standards broad impact on laws 
that affect fundamental rights. 

305
00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:33,320
The Court struck down provisions
of the Bipartisan Campaign 

306
00:16:33,320 --> 00:16:37,160
Reform Act, BCRA, that 
restricted independent political

307
00:16:37,160 --> 00:16:40,320
expenditures by corporations and
unions, finding that the 

308
00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:43,240
government had not provided a 
compelling justification for the

309
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:46,160
restrictions. 
Summary of Strict Scrutiny 

310
00:16:46,880 --> 00:16:49,480
Strict scrutiny is the 
judiciary's most rigorous 

311
00:16:49,480 --> 00:16:52,600
standard for evaluating laws 
that infringe on fundamental 

312
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:55,200
rights or involve suspect 
classifications. 

313
00:16:55,680 --> 00:16:58,520
Its application reflects the 
Court's commitment to protecting

314
00:16:58,520 --> 00:17:00,880
individual liberties and 
ensuring that the government 

315
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:04,000
cannot unjustly discriminate or 
limit essential freedoms. 

316
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:07,119
While the standard is demanding 
and often leads to the 

317
00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:10,680
invalidation of laws, it serves 
as a critical safeguard against 

318
00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:13,319
government overreach and the 
erosion of civil rights. 

319
00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:16,200
Conclusion. 
The role of scrutiny levels in 

320
00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:20,720
equal protection jurisprudence 
The levels of scrutiny, rational

321
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:24,400
basis review, intermediate 
scrutiny, and strict scrutiny 

322
00:17:24,599 --> 00:17:27,599
are central to the judiciary's 
role in enforcing the Equal 

323
00:17:27,599 --> 00:17:30,720
Protection clause. 
Each level reflects a different 

324
00:17:30,720 --> 00:17:33,240
degree of skepticism about the 
government's reasons for 

325
00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:36,440
enacting in particular law and 
the potential impact of the law 

326
00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:39,760
and individual rights. 
The level of scrutiny applied 

327
00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:43,160
can significantly influence the 
outcome of a case, with more 

328
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:46,360
stringent standards like strict 
scrutiny providing stronger 

329
00:17:46,360 --> 00:17:48,880
protection for fundamental 
rights and suspect 

330
00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:52,040
classifications. 
Rational basis review is the 

331
00:17:52,040 --> 00:17:55,160
most deferential, allowing 
government's broad latitude to 

332
00:17:55,160 --> 00:17:57,720
enact laws that classify 
individuals based on 

333
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:01,240
characteristics like age or 
economic status, as long as the 

334
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:04,040
classification is rationally 
related to a legitimate 

335
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:07,240
government interest. 
Intermediate scrutiny strikes a 

336
00:18:07,240 --> 00:18:10,520
balance between deference and 
protection, requiring a closer 

337
00:18:10,520 --> 00:18:13,080
connection between the law and 
an important government 

338
00:18:13,080 --> 00:18:16,800
interest, particularly in cases 
involving gender discrimination.

339
00:18:17,240 --> 00:18:20,640
Strict scrutiny, the most 
demanding standard, is reserved 

340
00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:23,560
for laws that affect fundamental
rights or involve suspect 

341
00:18:23,560 --> 00:18:27,040
classifications, ensuring that 
such laws are only upheld if 

342
00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:29,560
they are narrowly tailored to 
achieve a compelling government 

343
00:18:29,560 --> 00:18:32,320
interest. 
The judiciary's application of 

344
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:34,880
these levels of scrutiny 
reflects the broader tension 

345
00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:37,600
between protecting individual 
rights and respecting 

346
00:18:37,600 --> 00:18:40,720
legislative judgment. 
While the courts play a crucial 

347
00:18:40,720 --> 00:18:43,080
role in ensuring that the 
government does not unjustly 

348
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,040
discriminate or infringe on 
essential freedoms, they must 

349
00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:49,080
also balance this role with a 
recognition of the complexities 

350
00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:51,880
and challenges that lawmakers 
face in addressing societal 

351
00:18:51,880 --> 00:18:54,520
issues. 
As the Equal Protection Clause 

352
00:18:54,520 --> 00:18:58,120
continues to be a focal point of
constitutional litigation, the 

353
00:18:58,120 --> 00:19:01,240
levels of scrutiny will remain 
key tools in the judiciary's 

354
00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:04,440
efforts to interpret and enforce
the principles of equality and 

355
00:19:04,440 --> 00:19:09,920
justice. 2 Discrimination and 
Affirmative Action Introduction 

356
00:19:10,360 --> 00:19:14,000
This chapter explores 2 critical
aspects of equal protection 

357
00:19:14,000 --> 00:19:17,160
jurisprudence, the legal 
frameworks developed to combat 

358
00:19:17,160 --> 00:19:19,800
discrimination, and the 
contentious issue of affirmative

359
00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:22,160
action. 
The discussion will delve into 

360
00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:24,360
the various forms of 
discrimination that have been 

361
00:19:24,360 --> 00:19:27,360
addressed by the courts, the 
legal standards applied to these

362
00:19:27,360 --> 00:19:30,640
cases, and the evolution of 
affirmative action policies in 

363
00:19:30,640 --> 00:19:33,520
the United States. 
Through an examination of key 

364
00:19:33,520 --> 00:19:36,440
cases and controversies, this 
chapter will provide a 

365
00:19:36,440 --> 00:19:39,600
comprehensive understanding of 
how the Equal Protection Clause 

366
00:19:39,600 --> 00:19:41,840
continues to shape American 
Society. 

367
00:19:42,320 --> 00:19:45,560
The Equal Protection Clause is 
central to the legal efforts to 

368
00:19:45,600 --> 00:19:48,680
address discrimination and 
ensure that individuals are not 

369
00:19:48,680 --> 00:19:51,720
treated unfairly based on 
characteristics such as race, 

370
00:19:51,880 --> 00:19:55,360
gender, or ethnicity. 
Over the years, the courts have 

371
00:19:55,360 --> 00:19:58,080
developed different levels of 
scrutiny to analyze whether 

372
00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:01,440
government actions or laws that 
classify individuals violate the

373
00:20:01,440 --> 00:20:04,880
Equal Protection Clause. 
These levels of scrutiny, 

374
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:08,560
rational basis review, 
intermediate scrutiny and strict

375
00:20:08,560 --> 00:20:11,040
scrutiny are applied depending 
on the nature of the 

376
00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:13,160
classification and the rights 
involved. 

377
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:16,480
A Discrimination and the Equal 
Protection Clause. 

378
00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:19,880
Discrimination based on certain 
characteristics has been a 

379
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:22,880
primary focus of equal 
protection jurisprudence. 

380
00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:26,040
The courts have categorized 
these characteristics into 

381
00:20:26,040 --> 00:20:29,200
different classifications, with 
a level of scrutiny applied 

382
00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:31,200
varying based on the 
classification. 

383
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:34,640
The most critical areas of 
discrimination addressed under 

384
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:38,000
the Equal Protection Clause 
include race, gender, and other 

385
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:41,560
classifications such as age, 
disability, and sexual 

386
00:20:41,560 --> 00:20:43,560
orientation. 
One. 

387
00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:49,120
Race Discrimination, Historical 
Context and Development Race 

388
00:20:49,120 --> 00:20:51,720
discrimination has been a 
central issue in American 

389
00:20:51,720 --> 00:20:54,760
history, from the institution of
slavery to the era of 

390
00:20:54,760 --> 00:20:58,440
segregation and the ongoing 
challenges of racial inequality.

391
00:20:58,920 --> 00:21:01,960
The Equal Protection Clause has 
served as a vital tool in the 

392
00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:04,920
fight against racial 
discrimination, particularly in 

393
00:21:04,920 --> 00:21:07,840
the context of laws and 
government actions that classify

394
00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:11,000
individuals based on race. 
The Supreme Court has 

395
00:21:11,000 --> 00:21:13,600
consistently applied strict 
scrutiny to race based 

396
00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:16,600
classifications, requiring the 
government to demonstrate a 

397
00:21:16,600 --> 00:21:19,360
compelling interest and to 
ensure that the law is narrowly 

398
00:21:19,360 --> 00:21:21,000
tailored to achieve that 
interest. 

399
00:21:21,480 --> 00:21:27,440
Key Cases Brown V Board of 
Education 1954 The Supreme 

400
00:21:27,440 --> 00:21:30,520
Court's landmark decision in 
Brown V Board of Education, 

401
00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:33,240
overturned the separate but 
equal doctrine established in 

402
00:21:33,240 --> 00:21:37,800
Plessy V Ferguson 1896 and 
struck down racial segregation 

403
00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:40,800
in public schools. 
The Court held that segregated 

404
00:21:40,800 --> 00:21:43,760
schools were inherently unequal 
and violated the Equal 

405
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:47,080
Protection Clause, thus 
dismantling the legal foundation

406
00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:49,960
for racial segregation in 
education and other public 

407
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:52,520
services. 
The decision in Brown marked a 

408
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,720
significant shift in the Court's
approach to race discrimination,

409
00:21:55,880 --> 00:21:58,760
emphasizing that racial 
classifications would be subject

410
00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:00,800
to the most rigorous judicial 
scrutiny. 

411
00:22:01,200 --> 00:22:03,840
The case set the stage for the 
civil rights movement and 

412
00:22:03,840 --> 00:22:06,600
subsequent legislation aimed at 
eradicating racial 

413
00:22:06,600 --> 00:22:09,480
discrimination in all areas of 
American life. 

414
00:22:10,000 --> 00:22:14,280
Regions of the University of 
California V Baki, 1978. 

415
00:22:15,000 --> 00:22:18,040
In Baki, the Supreme Court 
addressed the issue of race 

416
00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:20,480
based affirmative action in 
college admissions. 

417
00:22:20,960 --> 00:22:24,520
The case involved Alan Baki, a 
white applicant who was denied 

418
00:22:24,520 --> 00:22:28,120
admission to the University of 
California, Davis School of 

419
00:22:28,120 --> 00:22:31,080
Medicine despite having higher 
test scores than some of the 

420
00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:33,600
minority applicants who were 
admitted under a special 

421
00:22:33,600 --> 00:22:36,600
admissions program. 
The court held that while racial

422
00:22:36,600 --> 00:22:40,080
quotas were unconstitutional, 
race could be considered as one 

423
00:22:40,080 --> 00:22:42,560
factor among many in the 
admissions process. 

424
00:22:43,040 --> 00:22:45,800
This decision established the 
framework for evaluating 

425
00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:48,600
affirmative action policies 
under the Equal Protection 

426
00:22:48,600 --> 00:22:51,800
Clause, balancing the need to 
address past discrimination with

427
00:22:51,800 --> 00:22:54,360
the prohibition against racial 
classifications. 

428
00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:58,920
The impact of Strict Scrutiny 
Strict scrutiny is the highest 

429
00:22:58,920 --> 00:23:02,480
level of judicial review applied
to race based classifications. 

430
00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:05,280
Under this standard, the 
government must show that the 

431
00:23:05,280 --> 00:23:07,960
classification serves a 
compelling state interest and 

432
00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:10,360
that the means chosen are 
narrowly tailored to achieve 

433
00:23:10,360 --> 00:23:13,320
that interest. 
This rigorous standard reflects 

434
00:23:13,320 --> 00:23:16,680
the Court's recognition of the 
historical and ongoing impact of

435
00:23:16,680 --> 00:23:19,720
race discrimination and its 
commitment to ensuring that any 

436
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,600
racial classification by the 
government is justified by the 

437
00:23:22,600 --> 00:23:24,680
most pressing and legitimate 
concerns. 

438
00:23:25,160 --> 00:23:28,480
However, the application of 
strict scrutiny has also led to 

439
00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:31,400
significant debates, 
particularly in the context of 

440
00:23:31,400 --> 00:23:34,560
affirmative action, where the 
goal of promoting diversity in 

441
00:23:34,560 --> 00:23:37,360
education and employment is 
weighed against the principle of

442
00:23:37,360 --> 00:23:40,640
non discrimination. 
The Court's decisions in cases 

443
00:23:40,640 --> 00:23:44,520
like Baki and Gruder V. 
Bollinger 2003 illustrate the 

444
00:23:44,520 --> 00:23:47,400
complexity of these issues and 
the challenges of balancing 

445
00:23:47,400 --> 00:23:51,120
competing constitutional values.
Ongoing Challenges and 

446
00:23:51,120 --> 00:23:54,600
Controversies Race 
discrimination remains a 

447
00:23:54,600 --> 00:23:58,000
pervasive issue in American 
Society, and the courts continue

448
00:23:58,000 --> 00:24:01,640
to grapple with cases involving 
racial profiling, voting rights,

449
00:24:01,840 --> 00:24:04,200
and access to education and 
employment. 

450
00:24:04,680 --> 00:24:07,480
While the Equal Protection 
Clause has been instrumental in 

451
00:24:07,480 --> 00:24:11,240
dismantling formal barriers to 
racial equality, informal and 

452
00:24:11,240 --> 00:24:14,920
systemic forms of discrimination
persist, raising new legal and 

453
00:24:14,920 --> 00:24:18,520
policy challenges. 
For example, cases involving 

454
00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:21,760
racial gerrymandering, where 
electoral districts are drawn to

455
00:24:21,760 --> 00:24:24,600
dilute the voting power of 
racial minorities, have 

456
00:24:24,600 --> 00:24:27,560
highlighted the ongoing struggle
for racial equality in the 

457
00:24:27,560 --> 00:24:31,080
political process. 
Similarly, issues related to 

458
00:24:31,080 --> 00:24:34,920
racial disparities in criminal 
justice, housing, and healthcare

459
00:24:34,920 --> 00:24:37,960
continue to be areas of concern,
with the courts playing a 

460
00:24:37,960 --> 00:24:40,640
critical role in addressing 
these disparities through the 

461
00:24:40,640 --> 00:24:45,400
lens of the Equal Protection 
Clause. 2 Gender Discrimination 

462
00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:49,160
Historical Context and 
Development Gender 

463
00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:52,200
discrimination has been another 
significant area of equal 

464
00:24:52,200 --> 00:24:55,520
protection jurisprudence, 
particularly as the legal system

465
00:24:55,520 --> 00:24:58,600
has evolved to recognize the 
full equality of women under the

466
00:24:58,600 --> 00:25:01,080
law. 
For much of American history, 

467
00:25:01,200 --> 00:25:04,480
women were subjected to legal 
and societal discrimination, 

468
00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:07,760
often justified by traditional 
notions of gender roles. 

469
00:25:08,200 --> 00:25:11,040
The Equal Protection Clause has 
been a crucial tool in 

470
00:25:11,040 --> 00:25:14,400
challenging these discriminatory
practices and advancing gender 

471
00:25:14,400 --> 00:25:16,920
equality. 
The Supreme Court typically 

472
00:25:16,920 --> 00:25:20,360
applies intermediate scrutiny to
gender based classifications, 

473
00:25:20,480 --> 00:25:23,120
requiring the government to show
that the classification is 

474
00:25:23,120 --> 00:25:26,040
substantially related to an 
important government interest. 

475
00:25:26,520 --> 00:25:29,080
This standard reflects the 
Court's recognition that while 

476
00:25:29,080 --> 00:25:32,280
gender is not treated with the 
same level of suspicion as race,

477
00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:35,400
it still warrants a heightened 
level of judicial review due to 

478
00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:37,760
the history of gender based 
discrimination. 

479
00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:42,880
Key cases Frontiero V 
Richardson, 1973. 

480
00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:47,080
In Frontiero, the Supreme Court 
struck down a federal law that 

481
00:25:47,080 --> 00:25:49,960
required female military members
to prove their husband's 

482
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:53,320
dependency to receive benefits, 
while male members wives were 

483
00:25:53,320 --> 00:25:55,240
automatically considered 
dependents. 

484
00:25:55,720 --> 00:25:58,680
The court found that the gender 
based classification was based 

485
00:25:58,680 --> 00:26:02,280
on outdated and stereotypical 
notions of gender roles, and it 

486
00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:04,160
applied heightened scrutiny to 
the law. 

487
00:26:04,640 --> 00:26:07,560
The decision in Franiera was 
significant because it marked 

488
00:26:07,560 --> 00:26:10,760
one of the first instances where
the court explicitly recognized 

489
00:26:10,760 --> 00:26:13,640
that gender based classification
should be subject to a more 

490
00:26:13,640 --> 00:26:17,160
rigorous standard of review. 
The case laid the groundwork for

491
00:26:17,160 --> 00:26:19,920
subsequent decisions that would 
further solidify the legal 

492
00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:23,120
framework for addressing gender 
discrimination under the Equal 

493
00:26:23,120 --> 00:26:27,920
Protection Clause. 
United States V Virginia, 1996. 

494
00:26:28,640 --> 00:26:31,800
United States V Virginia is one 
of the most important gender 

495
00:26:31,800 --> 00:26:35,080
discrimination cases in equal 
protection jurisprudence. 

496
00:26:35,520 --> 00:26:38,520
The Supreme Court struck down 
Virginia's exclusion of women 

497
00:26:38,520 --> 00:26:42,200
from the Virginia Military 
Institute, BMIA state funded 

498
00:26:42,200 --> 00:26:45,200
military college that had 
historically admitted only men. 

499
00:26:45,680 --> 00:26:48,200
The Court applied intermediate 
scrutiny and found that 

500
00:26:48,200 --> 00:26:51,240
Virginia's justification for the
gender based exclusion 

501
00:26:51,400 --> 00:26:55,080
preserving the unique character 
of VM is educational model did 

502
00:26:55,080 --> 00:26:58,600
not meet the required standard. 
The Court emphasized that gender

503
00:26:58,600 --> 00:27:01,600
based classifications must be 
supported by an exceedingly 

504
00:27:01,600 --> 00:27:04,720
persuasive justification and 
cannot be based on over broad 

505
00:27:04,720 --> 00:27:07,520
generalizations about the 
abilities or roles of men and 

506
00:27:07,520 --> 00:27:09,720
women. 
The decision in Virginia 

507
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:12,440
underscored the Court's 
commitment to gender equality 

508
00:27:12,440 --> 00:27:15,200
and its willingness to strike 
down laws and practices that 

509
00:27:15,200 --> 00:27:17,080
perpetuate gender 
discrimination. 

510
00:27:17,560 --> 00:27:19,400
The role of intermediate 
scrutiny. 

511
00:27:20,120 --> 00:27:23,880
Intermediate scrutiny applied to
gender based classifications 

512
00:27:24,000 --> 00:27:26,040
requires the government to 
demonstrate that the 

513
00:27:26,040 --> 00:27:28,880
classification is substantially 
related to an important 

514
00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:31,920
government interest. 
This standard is less demanding 

515
00:27:31,920 --> 00:27:34,800
than strict scrutiny, but more 
rigorous than rational basis 

516
00:27:34,800 --> 00:27:37,200
review, reflecting the Court's 
view that gender 

517
00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:40,600
classifications, while not 
inherently suspect, still 

518
00:27:40,600 --> 00:27:42,760
warrant careful judicial 
examination. 

519
00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:46,520
The application of intermediate 
scrutiny has led to significant 

520
00:27:46,520 --> 00:27:49,080
progress in the fight against 
gender discrimination, 

521
00:27:49,240 --> 00:27:53,040
particularly in areas such as 
employment, education and family

522
00:27:53,040 --> 00:27:55,720
law. 
However, the standard has also 

523
00:27:55,720 --> 00:27:58,800
been the subject of debate, with
some critics arguing that it 

524
00:27:58,800 --> 00:28:01,400
does not provide sufficient 
protection against gender 

525
00:28:01,400 --> 00:28:04,520
discrimination and that gender 
should be treated as a suspect 

526
00:28:04,520 --> 00:28:06,880
classification, subject to 
strict scrutiny. 

527
00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:10,880
Ongoing Challenges and 
Controversies Gender 

528
00:28:10,880 --> 00:28:14,120
discrimination continues to be a
significant issue in American 

529
00:28:14,120 --> 00:28:17,440
Society, with ongoing legal 
challenges related to pay 

530
00:28:17,440 --> 00:28:21,240
equity, reproductive rights, and
workplace discrimination. 

531
00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:24,440
The courts have played a crucial
role in advancing gender 

532
00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:27,920
equality, but significant 
disparities and barriers remain.

533
00:28:28,360 --> 00:28:31,320
One of the most contentious 
areas of gender discrimination 

534
00:28:31,320 --> 00:28:34,400
lies reproductive rights, where 
the intersection of gender 

535
00:28:34,400 --> 00:28:38,040
equality and individual autonomy
has led to deeply polarized 

536
00:28:38,040 --> 00:28:40,680
debates. 
Cases involving access to 

537
00:28:40,680 --> 00:28:44,040
contraception, abortion, and 
reproductive healthcare have 

538
00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:47,400
highlighted the ongoing struggle
for gender equality, a legal 

539
00:28:47,400 --> 00:28:49,520
landscape that is continually 
evolving. 

540
00:28:50,040 --> 00:28:53,280
Another area of concern is the 
under representation of women in

541
00:28:53,280 --> 00:28:56,040
certain sectors of the 
workforce, particularly in 

542
00:28:56,040 --> 00:28:58,600
leadership roles and 
traditionally male dominated 

543
00:28:58,600 --> 00:29:01,320
industries. 
While legal protections against 

544
00:29:01,320 --> 00:29:04,040
gender discrimination in 
employment have improved, 

545
00:29:04,160 --> 00:29:08,080
challenges related to implicit 
bias, workplace culture, and 

546
00:29:08,080 --> 00:29:11,400
structural barriers continue to 
impede progress toward full 

547
00:29:11,400 --> 00:29:15,480
gender equality. 3 
Discrimination based on other 

548
00:29:15,480 --> 00:29:21,480
classifications Age, disability 
and sexual orientation The Equal

549
00:29:21,480 --> 00:29:24,880
Protection clause also addresses
discrimination based on other 

550
00:29:24,880 --> 00:29:28,840
classifications such as age, 
disability and sexual 

551
00:29:28,840 --> 00:29:31,880
orientation. 
The level of scrutiny applied by

552
00:29:31,880 --> 00:29:34,920
the courts varies depending on 
the classification, with 

553
00:29:34,920 --> 00:29:38,120
rational basis review typically 
applied to non suspect 

554
00:29:38,120 --> 00:29:41,600
classifications like age and 
disability, and a more rigorous 

555
00:29:41,600 --> 00:29:45,040
standard sometimes applied to 
classifications based on sexual 

556
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:46,000
orientation.