Key Equal Protection Clause Cases

Why This Matters

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of the most heavily tested concepts in AP Government, and for good reason—it's the constitutional engine that has driven nearly every major civil rights victory since Reconstruction. You're being tested on more than just case names and dates; you need to understand levels of scrutiny, suspect classifications, and how the Court's interpretation of "equal protection" has evolved from permitting segregation to dismantling it.

These cases reveal a pattern: the Supreme Court doesn't change direction overnight. It develops standards of review that determine how strictly it will examine laws that treat people differently. When you study these cases, focus on which scrutiny level applies, what classification is at issue (race, gender, or something else), and whether the Court upheld or struck down the law. Don't just memorize holdings—know what constitutional principle each case established and how it connects to the broader struggle between government power and individual rights.

---

Racial Classifications and Strict Scrutiny

When laws classify people by race, the Court applies strict scrutiny—the government must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means. This standard emerged from the Court's recognition that race-based laws have historically been used to oppress, not protect.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Established "separate but equal"—this doctrine allowed states to mandate racial segregation as long as facilities were supposedly equal in quality
• Failed to apply meaningful scrutiny to racial classifications, treating segregation as a reasonable exercise of state police power
• Legitimized Jim Crow laws for nearly 60 years, making this case essential for understanding why strict scrutiny later became necessary

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Overturned Plessy, declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" regardless of physical conditions
• Relied on social science evidence showing segregation psychologically harmed Black children, shifting equal protection analysis toward real-world effects
• Catalyzed the Civil Rights Movement and established that the Court would no longer defer to states on racial classifications in education

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

• Struck down anti-miscegenation laws banning interracial marriage in 16 states, applying strict scrutiny to racial classifications
• Declared marriage a fundamental right—this dual grounding in equal protection and due process became a model for later cases
• Rejected "equal application" defense—Virginia argued the law treated both races equally, but the Court held racial classifications require compelling justification regardless

---

Gender Classifications and Intermediate Scrutiny

The Court developed a middle tier of review for sex-based classifications. Under intermediate scrutiny, laws must serve an important governmental objective and be substantially related to achieving it—more demanding than rational basis, but less than strict scrutiny.

Reed v. Reed (1971)

• First case to strike down a law under equal protection for sex discrimination—an Idaho statute automatically preferred men over women as estate administrators
• Applied heightened rational basis review, signaling the Court's willingness to scrutinize gender classifications more carefully
• Opened the door for gender to become a semi-suspect classification, though the formal standard came later

Craig v. Boren (1976)

• Established intermediate scrutiny as the official standard for gender-based classifications—laws must serve important objectives through substantially related means
• Struck down Oklahoma's drinking age law that allowed women to buy 3.2% beer at 18 but required men to wait until 21
• Created the framework still used today for evaluating sex discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause

United States v. Virginia (1996)

• Invalidated VMI's male-only admissions policy, requiring the military college to admit women
• Raised the bar by demanding an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for gender classifications—some scholars see this as approaching strict scrutiny
• Rejected stereotyping as justification; the state cannot rely on generalizations about men's and women's abilities or preferences

---

Affirmative Action and the Diversity Rationale

Affirmative action cases ask whether race-conscious policies designed to help historically disadvantaged groups can survive strict scrutiny. The Court has allowed race as one factor among many but consistently rejected rigid quotas.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

• Split decision struck down UC Davis's racial quota system but permitted race as one factor in a holistic admissions review
• Justice Powell's diversity rationale became controlling—universities have a compelling interest in educational diversity
• Set the template for affirmative action litigation: no quotas, but individualized consideration of race is permissible

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

• Upheld University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy using race as a "plus factor" in holistic review
• Endorsed the diversity rationale as a compelling interest, with Justice O'Connor suggesting a 25-year horizon for race-conscious admissions
• Narrowly tailored requirement means schools must consider race-neutral alternatives and cannot use race mechanically

Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)

• Upheld UT Austin's policy after applying strict scrutiny and finding the university demonstrated necessity
• Emphasized ongoing judicial review—universities bear the burden of proving their race-conscious policies remain necessary
• Clarified that deference has limits; courts must verify that race-neutral alternatives were genuinely considered

---

Fundamental Rights and Marriage Equality

Some equal protection cases also invoke due process because they concern fundamental rights. Marriage has been recognized as fundamental, meaning laws restricting it face heightened review regardless of the classification involved.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

• Legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, holding that state bans violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses
• Extended the fundamental right to marry recognized in Loving to same-sex couples, emphasizing dignity and autonomy
• Did not establish a new scrutiny level for sexual orientation; instead relied on the fundamental rights framework to avoid that question

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two cases both recognized marriage as a fundamental right, and what type of classification did each address?

2. Explain how the scrutiny standard for gender discrimination evolved from Reed v. Reed to Craig v. Boren to United States v. Virginia.

3. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education: what constitutional clause did both interpret, and why did the Court reach opposite conclusions?

4. If an FRQ asks you to trace the development of affirmative action doctrine, which three cases would you use and what did each contribute?

5. Why does Obergefell v. Hodges rely on fundamental rights rather than establishing a new level of scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications?