PA101Unit 8

Let’s review a few issues:Strength QuestWhere do our laws come from?

Federal Sources of LawU.S. ConstitutionFederal statutesFederal case lawFederal administrative rules and

regulations take priority over state laws.

State Sources of LawState constitutionsState statutesState agencies

rules and regsState case law

from state courtsLocal laws and

ordinances from cities, towns, etc.

Equal Protection Clause

Where do we find it?

What is it?

Equal Protection Clause

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Added to the Bill of Rights in 1868

Prohibits states or federal government from enacting laws that classify and treat “similarly situated” persons differently

Overview of EP: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of

the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race.

This is important—the equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application.

EP Continued:A violation would occur if a state prohibited

an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race.

The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals but only "equal application" of the laws. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

EP Continued: Generally, the question of whether the equal

protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests (rational basis, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny) and depending on the type of classification (race, gender) and its effect on fundamental rights.

Levels of Scrutiny: “Strict Scrutiny”The government must show that the

challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest: Suspect Classifications:

Race National Origin ReligionAlienage (unless the classification falls within a

recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).

“Strict Scrutiny” and Fundamental Rights:

Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights:Denial or Dilution of the Vote Interstate Migration Access to the Courts Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental

Levels of Scrutiny: “Intermediate Scrutiny” The government must show that the

challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

Quasi-Suspect Classifications: Gender Illegitimacy

Levels of Scrutiny: “Rational Basis Scrutiny”The government need only show that the challenged

classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.

Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.

It is very difficult to uphold a law once it is subjected to "strict scrutiny" and very difficult to strike it down if it is only subject to "rational basis" review.

Equal Protection Case Summaries: Case Name Facts Holding

Reed, 404 U.S. 71 1971

A law gave preference to a man in deciding who should be the executor of an estate, all other factors being equal.

Unconstitutional

Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (1975)

A law set the age of majority for women at eighteen and for men at twenty-one.

Unconstitutional

Craig, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

A law allowed eighteen-year-old women to buy beer, but required men to be twenty-one.

Unconstitutional

Gender:Case Name Facts Holding

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979)

A law gave unwed mothers the right to consent to an adoption of the child, but not the unwed father.

Unconstitutional

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981)

A law criminalized statutory rape for a male, but not a female.

Constitutional

MS Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982)

A state-run nursing school admitted only women.

Unconstitutional

US v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)

State operated a military institute exclusively for men.

Unconstitutional

Race, Ethnicity, or National Origin:Case Name: Facts: Holding:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

An ordinance making it a crime to carry on a laundry within city limits was enforced solely against Chinese, even though it did not mention race.

Unconstitutional

Korematsu v. US, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)

During World War II, a law (the war in prohibited individuals of Japanese was a compelling reason) ancestry from being in certain military areas.

ConstitutionalWar the compelling reason.

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)

Defendant challenged state death (no showing penalty claiming statistical studies of purposeful discrimination) showed its imposition was based on race.

ConstitutionalNo purposeful discrimination shown.

Alienage:Case Name: Facts: Holding

Takahashi v. Fish & Game Com., 334 U.S. 410 (1948)

A state law denied the right to obtain a fishing license necessary to the alien’s business as a commercial fisherman.

Unconstitutional

Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971)

A law denied welfare benefits to resident aliens.

Unconstitutional

In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973)

A state law denied a resident alien the right to take the bar examination.

Unconstitutional

 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

A state law withheld funds from local school districts enrolling undocumented aliens.

Unconstitutional

Poverty:Case Name Facts: Holding:

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)

A state law required convicted right to fair trial indigent defendants to pay for a copy of the transcript

Unconstitutional

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)

A state funded schools through property taxes even though poorerneighborhoods had less money for education.

Constitutional

Various Classifications:Case Name: Class: Facts: Holding:

Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976)

Age A state law required police to retire at age fifty.

Constitutional

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)

Mental Disability

A group home for the mentally disabled was forced to apply for a special zoning permit.

Unconstitutional

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)  

Sexual Preference

A state constitution prohibited all legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect the status of persons based on their sexual preference.

Unconstitutional

Equal Protection Clause analysisHow the Supreme

Court analyzes these types of cases:

Strict scrutiny testIntermediate

scrutiny testRational basis test

Equal Protection ClauseStrict scrutiny test: laws based on race or

national origin are unconstitutional.

Intermediate scrutiny test: laws based on age or gender will be examined by Court to determine if the law is “reasonably related” to a legitimate goverment purpose.

Rational basis test: laws that do not involve a suspect (protected) class will be upheld by Court so long as there is a justifiable reason for the law.

Equal Protection ClauseThese two cases (Plessy v. Ferguson and

Brown v. Board) are a classic demonstration of U.S. Supreme Court overruling itself as society changes

Have a great week!• Reminders:

• Absolutely NO work will be accepted after September 8th unless there is an Incomplete in place.

• Last Day for Students to Request Incomplete is September 7th—remember you must request it.

• End of Term:  September 8th

• Final Grades Available Online:  September 14th

• If you request an incomplete your coursework is due NO LATER THAN September 18th