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. It's the constitutional foundation behind nearly every major civil rights victory since Reconstruction. You're being tested on more than case names and dates; you need to understand levels of scrutiny, suspect classifications, and how the Court's interpretation of "equal protection" has shifted over time.

These cases follow a pattern: the Supreme Court doesn't change direction overnight. It develops standards of review that determine how strictly it examines laws treating 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. Know what constitutional principle each case established and how it connects to the broader tension 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, which is why this case is 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 (including psychologist Kenneth Clark's doll studies) showing segregation psychologically harmed Black children, shifting equal protection analysis toward real-world effects rather than surface-level comparisons of facilities
• 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 (especially Obergefell)
• Rejected the "equal application" defense: Virginia argued the law punished both races equally, but the Court held that racial classifications require compelling justification regardless of whom they burden

---

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. That's more demanding than rational basis review, but less demanding 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 a heightened form of rational basis review, signaling the Court's willingness to scrutinize gender classifications more carefully than it had before
• Opened the door for gender to become a semi-suspect classification, though the formal intermediate scrutiny standard wouldn't arrive until five years 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 sex-based drinking age law, which allowed women to buy 3.2% beer at 18 but required men to wait until 21. The state argued statistical differences in drunk driving rates justified the distinction, but the Court found the evidence too weak to meet the new standard.
• 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 state-funded military college to admit women
• Raised the bar by demanding an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for gender classifications. Some scholars view this language as pushing intermediate scrutiny closer to strict scrutiny in practice.
• Rejected stereotyping as justification: the state cannot rely on generalizations about men's and women's abilities or preferences to exclude an entire sex

---

Affirmative Action and the Diversity Rationale

Affirmative action cases ask whether race-conscious policies designed to help historically disadvantaged groups can survive strict scrutiny. For decades, the Court allowed race as one factor among many but consistently rejected rigid quotas. That framework has since been overturned.

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

• Split decision struck down UC Davis's racial quota system (which reserved 16 of 100 seats for minority applicants) but permitted race as one factor in a holistic admissions review
• Justice Powell's diversity rationale became the controlling opinion: universities have a compelling interest in educational diversity
• Set the template for affirmative action litigation for the next 25 years: 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 a clear majority (unlike Bakke's fractured decision), with Justice O'Connor suggesting a 25-year horizon for race-conscious admissions
• Narrowly tailored requirement means schools must seriously 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 that race-conscious admissions were necessary to achieve meaningful diversity
• Emphasized ongoing judicial review: universities bear the burden of proving their race-conscious policies remain necessary over time
• Clarified that deference has limits; courts must verify that race-neutral alternatives were genuinely considered, not just mentioned

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)

• Effectively ended race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities, ruling that Harvard's and UNC's programs violated the Equal Protection Clause
• Found that the diversity rationale lacked measurable endpoints, making it impossible to apply meaningful strict scrutiny review
• Did not overrule the principle that diversity can be compelling, but held that the admissions programs at issue were not narrowly tailored. Students may still discuss race in personal essays, but admissions programs can no longer use race as a factor in evaluating applicants.

This case is a major shift. The line from Bakke to Grutter to Fisher suggested race-conscious admissions would continue with guardrails. SFFA v. Harvard broke that trajectory.

---

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 sidestep that question. This matters because the Court has still never formally declared sexual orientation a suspect or semi-suspect classification.

---

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 cases would you use and what did each contribute? Be sure to include the most recent major ruling.

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