1.6 Equal protection
11 min read•august 21, 2024
Equal protection is a fundamental principle in U.S. law, rooted in the . It prohibits discrimination and ensures fair treatment under the law, shaping civil rights jurisprudence and addressing historical inequalities.
Courts use different levels of scrutiny to evaluate equal protection claims, from for race-based laws to rational basis for most other classifications. This framework balances individual rights with government interests, evolving to address new forms of discrimination.
Historical background of equal protection
- emerged as a cornerstone of civil rights law in the United States
- Fundamentally altered the relationship between federal and state governments regarding individual rights
- Continues to shape legal discourse on discrimination and equality in modern jurisprudence
Origins in 14th Amendment
Top images from around the web for Origins in 14th Amendment
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Origins in 14th Amendment
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Ratified in 1868 as part of Reconstruction Amendments following the Civil War
- Aimed to address and ensure equal rights for newly freed slaves
- Contains the Equal Protection Clause stating "nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
- Marked a significant shift in federal power to protect individual rights against state actions
Post-Civil War developments
- Civil Rights Act of 1875 attempted to implement equal protection principles
- Faced resistance and limited enforcement in Southern states
- Supreme Court's narrow interpretation in Civil Rights Cases (1883) restricted federal power
- Jim Crow laws emerged, perpetuating racial segregation despite 14th Amendment guarantees
- (1896) upheld "separate but equal" doctrine, limiting equal protection's scope
Early Supreme Court interpretations
- Initially applied equal protection narrowly, focusing primarily on racial discrimination
- Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) struck down a law excluding Black citizens from juries
- (1886) extended equal protection to non-citizens, addressing discrimination against Chinese immigrants
- Gradually expanded scope to include other forms of discrimination beyond race
- (1954) overturned Plessy, marking a turning point in equal protection jurisprudence
Levels of scrutiny
- Developed by the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of laws under equal protection
- Reflect different degrees of judicial review based on the nature of the classification or right affected
- Play a crucial role in determining the outcome of equal protection challenges in U.S. courts
Strict scrutiny standard
- Highest level of scrutiny applied to (race, national origin, religion)
- Government must prove law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest
- Presumption of unconstitutionality places heavy burden on government to justify the law
- Rarely survives strict scrutiny, often described as "strict in theory, fatal in fact"
- Applied in cases involving (voting, interstate travel, access to courts)
Intermediate scrutiny standard
- Middle tier of scrutiny applied to quasi-suspect classifications (gender, legitimacy)
- Government must show law is substantially related to an important government interest
- More flexible than strict scrutiny but still requires significant justification
- Developed in (1976) for gender-based classifications
- Also applied in some First Amendment cases involving commercial speech
Rational basis test
- Lowest level of scrutiny applied to most other classifications
- Law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest
- High deference to legislative judgments, presumption of constitutionality
- Government action typically survives rational basis review
- Applied to economic regulations, age classifications, and non-fundamental rights
- Occasionally used as "rational basis with bite" in cases like (1996)
Protected classes
- Groups specifically identified for protection against discrimination under equal protection laws
- Reflect historical patterns of discrimination and societal recognition of vulnerable populations
- Influence the level of scrutiny applied in equal protection analysis
- Continue to evolve as societal understanding of discrimination changes
Race and national origin
- Subject to strict scrutiny, reflecting the 14th Amendment's original purpose
- Prohibits both overt discrimination and facially neutral laws with discriminatory impact
- Covers all racial and ethnic groups, not just historically disadvantaged minorities
- Includes protections against racial profiling, segregation, and employment discrimination
- Extends to discrimination based on ancestry or place of birth
Gender and sex
- Initially subject to rational basis, now evaluated under
- Covers discrimination against both men and women
- Prohibits gender stereotyping and overly broad generalizations about gender roles
- Includes protections against pregnancy discrimination ()
- Recent cases have expanded interpretation to cover sexual orientation and gender identity
Religion
- Protected under both Equal Protection Clause and First Amendment's Establishment Clause
- Government actions targeting specific religions subject to strict scrutiny
- Covers both religious belief and practice, including protections for religious minorities
- Balances religious freedom with other constitutional rights and government interests
- Includes protections against religious discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations
Age vs disability
- Age discrimination generally subject to rational basis review
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act provides statutory protections for workers over 40
- Disability discrimination addressed primarily through (ADA)
- ADA requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits discrimination in various contexts
- Courts have applied a form of heightened scrutiny to disability discrimination in some cases
Disparate treatment vs disparate impact
- Two primary theories for proving discrimination under equal protection and civil rights laws
- Reflect different ways in which discrimination can manifest in policies and practices
- Crucial distinction in determining the appropriate legal analysis and burden of proof
Intentional discrimination analysis
- Focuses on proving discriminatory intent or purpose behind a law or action
- Requires evidence of deliberate discrimination against a protected class
- Can be demonstrated through direct evidence or circumstantial evidence of bias
- Applies strict scrutiny to racial classifications, even if benign or remedial in nature
- Challenging to prove in cases where discrimination is subtle or unconscious
Unintentional discrimination effects
- Addresses facially neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups
- Does not require proof of discriminatory intent, focuses on discriminatory outcomes
- Recognized in (1971) under Title VII of Civil Rights Act
- Allows challenges to practices that perpetuate historical discrimination
- More commonly applied in statutory contexts than constitutional equal protection claims
Burden of proof considerations
- Disparate treatment cases require plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent
- McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework often used in employment discrimination cases
- Disparate impact cases require plaintiff to show statistical disparity in outcomes
- Defendant can rebut by demonstrating business necessity or job-relatedness of practice
- Plaintiff may still prevail by showing alternative practices with less discriminatory impact
Affirmative action
- Policies and programs designed to benefit underrepresented groups in education and employment
- Controversial application of equal protection principles to address historical discrimination
- Subject to ongoing legal challenges and evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence
- Balances remedial goals against concerns of
Educational context
- Focuses on increasing diversity in higher education admissions
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld narrow use of race as one factor in holistic review
- Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) reaffirmed but clarified strict scrutiny standard
- Prohibits racial quotas or point systems based solely on race
- Requires periodic review to ensure continued necessity of race-conscious policies
Employment context
- Addresses underrepresentation in hiring, promotion, and contracting
- Voluntary programs must meet strict scrutiny standard if challenged
- Court-ordered remedies may be imposed to address proven past discrimination
- Executive Order 11246 requires plans for federal contractors
- Private employers must navigate Title VII restrictions on preferential treatment
Strict scrutiny application
- Affirmative action programs must be narrowly tailored to achieve compelling interest
- Diversity in higher education recognized as compelling interest in Grutter
- Remedying specific, identified past discrimination may justify limited use of race
- Programs must consider race-neutral alternatives before adopting race-conscious measures
- Time-limited nature emphasized, with expectation of eventual phase-out
Equal protection in voting rights
- Intersection of equal protection principles with fundamental right to vote
- Addresses various forms of discrimination and barriers in electoral processes
- Involves complex balancing of state interests in election integrity with individual rights
- Subject to both constitutional and statutory protections ()
Redistricting and gerrymandering
- Equal protection prohibits intentional racial gerrymandering (, 1993)
- Requires creation of majority-minority districts under certain circumstances
- Partisan gerrymandering claims face higher hurdles after (2019)
- "One person, one vote" principle requires roughly equal population in legislative districts
- Challenges arise in balancing racial considerations with other redistricting criteria
Voter ID laws
- Subject to equal protection challenges if disproportionately affecting minority voters
- (2008) upheld Indiana's voter ID law under rational basis
- Subsequent challenges focus on discriminatory intent or undue burdens on voting rights
- Courts consider evidence of disparate impact and availability of free IDs
- Balances state interest in preventing fraud against potential for voter suppression
Voting accessibility issues
- Addresses barriers to voting faced by various groups (disabled, elderly, language minorities)
- Americans with Disabilities Act requires polling place accessibility and accommodations
- Language assistance provisions of Voting Rights Act protect linguistic minorities
- Equal protection challenges to long wait times or inadequate resources in certain precincts
- Includes issues of early voting, mail-in ballots, and polling place closures or relocations
Equal protection in criminal justice
- Addresses systemic disparities and discrimination within the criminal justice system
- Intersects with due process concerns and Eighth Amendment protections
- Challenges deeply entrenched practices and implicit biases in law enforcement and courts
- Ongoing area of litigation and reform efforts in light of racial disparities in outcomes
Selective prosecution
- Prohibits prosecutorial decisions based on race, religion, or other arbitrary classifications
- High bar for proving discriminatory intent in prosecutorial discretion (, 1996)
- Requires evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose
- Challenges in obtaining discovery to prove selective prosecution claims
- Recent focus on racial disparities in drug prosecutions and charging decisions
Jury selection
- (1986) prohibits race-based peremptory challenges in jury selection
- Extended to gender-based exclusions in (1994)
- Three-step process for evaluating Batson challenges to discriminatory jury strikes
- Ongoing issues with pretext and implicit bias in jury selection process
- Efforts to increase jury diversity and representativeness face constitutional hurdles
Sentencing disparities
- Equal protection challenges to racial disparities in sentencing outcomes
- (1987) set high bar for proving discriminatory intent in death penalty
- Focus on mandatory minimum sentences and their disparate impact on minority communities
- Recent reforms addressing crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparities
- Consideration of implicit bias and structural racism in sentencing guidelines and practices
State action doctrine
- Limits application of constitutional protections to government actions, not private conduct
- Key principle in determining scope of equal protection and other constitutional rights
- Reflects balance between individual liberties and government responsibility
- Continues to evolve with changing nature of public-private partnerships and services
Public vs private discrimination
- Constitutional equal protection applies only to state actors, not private individuals
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes address private discrimination
- State action required for constitutional claims, limiting reach of 14th Amendment
- Challenges in defining state action in era of privatization and public-private partnerships
- Private conduct may become state action if sufficiently entwined with government functions
Exceptions to state action requirement
- Public function exception applies when private entities perform traditional government functions
- Entanglement exception when government significantly involves itself with private conduct
- State compulsion when government coerces or encourages private discriminatory action
- Symbiotic relationship where government and private entity share responsibilities
- Judicial enforcement of private discriminatory agreements (, 1948)
Recent developments and controversies
- Reflect ongoing evolution of equal protection doctrine in response to societal changes
- Address emerging forms of discrimination and new understandings of equality
- Often involve intersection of equal protection with other constitutional rights
- Subject to intense legal and political debate, shaping future direction of civil rights law
LGBTQ+ rights and equal protection
- (2015) recognized fundamental right to same-sex marriage
- (2020) extended Title VII protections to sexual orientation and gender identity
- Ongoing litigation over religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws
- Challenges to transgender rights in education, healthcare, and public accommodations
- Debate over level of scrutiny applicable to sexual orientation and gender identity classifications
Intersectionality in equal protection claims
- Recognizes compounded discrimination faced by individuals with multiple marginalized identities
- Challenges traditional single-axis approach to discrimination analysis
- Emerging in employment discrimination cases involving multiple protected characteristics
- Difficulties in applying existing frameworks to intersectional claims
- Potential for expanding understanding of equal protection to address complex forms of discrimination
Emerging protected classes
- Debates over extending heightened scrutiny to new groups (economic status, education level)
- Consideration of discrimination based on genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act)
- Potential for recognizing discrimination based on physical appearance or weight
- Challenges in defining and limiting new protected classes
- Balancing expansion of protections with concerns about diluting existing categories
Equal protection vs other constitutional rights
- Explores interactions and tensions between equal protection and other constitutional provisions
- Reflects complex balancing of competing rights and interests in constitutional law
- Crucial for understanding comprehensive approach to civil rights and liberties
- Often requires courts to reconcile conflicting constitutional principles
Due process comparison
- Both found in 14th Amendment, often intertwined in legal analysis
- Substantive due process protects fundamental rights not explicitly enumerated
- Procedural due process ensures fair procedures in government actions
- Equal protection focuses on classifications and differential treatment
- Recent cases (Obergefell) blend due process and equal protection reasoning
First Amendment intersections
- Tensions between free speech/religion and anti-discrimination principles
- Cases involving expressive association rights vs. equal protection (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale)
- Balancing religious freedom claims against equal protection in public accommodations
- Consideration of hate speech regulations and campus speech codes
- Intersection of free press rights with equal access to information
Privacy rights considerations
- Right to privacy often derived from substantive due process
- Intersects with equal protection in reproductive rights cases (, Planned Parenthood v. Casey)
- LGBTQ+ rights cases involve both privacy and equal protection concerns
- Data privacy issues raise questions of equal protection in surveillance and information gathering
- Balancing individual privacy rights with anti-discrimination enforcement efforts
Remedies for equal protection violations
- Range of legal remedies available to address and rectify constitutional violations
- Reflect courts' power to enforce equal protection guarantees
- Balance need for effective relief with respect for separation of powers
- Ongoing challenges in designing remedies that address systemic discrimination
Injunctive relief
- Court orders prohibiting discriminatory practices or mandating specific actions
- Can include broad institutional reforms (school desegregation orders)
- Preliminary injunctions to prevent immediate harm during litigation
- Permanent injunctions to provide long-term solutions to equal protection violations
- Challenges in monitoring and enforcing complex injunctive relief
Damages and compensation
- Monetary awards to compensate victims of discrimination
- Limited availability against government entities due to sovereign immunity
- Section 1983 claims allow suits against state actors for constitutional violations
- Punitive damages generally not available against government entities
- Challenges in quantifying damages for intangible harms of discrimination
Structural reforms
- Court-ordered changes to policies, practices, or organizational structures
- Aimed at addressing systemic discrimination and preventing future violations
- Can include oversight mechanisms, training programs, or hiring goals
- Consent decrees often used to implement long-term reforms
- Debates over judicial authority to mandate broad institutional changes
Key Terms to Review (36)
14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, is a crucial piece of legislation that provides a broad definition of citizenship and guarantees equal protection under the law. It establishes key rights and protections for all individuals, particularly in the context of federalism by limiting state powers and enhancing individual rights. This amendment also plays a significant role in ensuring that the Bill of Rights applies to state governments, thereby promoting justice and equality for all citizens.
Affirmative Action: Affirmative action refers to policies and practices aimed at increasing the representation of historically marginalized groups in areas like education and employment. It is designed to address past discrimination and promote equal opportunity by considering factors such as race, gender, and ethnicity in decision-making processes. This concept is closely linked to equal protection under the law, as it seeks to ensure that all individuals have access to the same opportunities regardless of their background.
Americans with Disabilities Act: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a landmark piece of legislation enacted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various areas, including employment, public accommodations, and transportation. It aims to ensure equal opportunities and access for people with disabilities, aligning with the broader principle of equal protection under the law.
Batson v. Kentucky: Batson v. Kentucky is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1986 that ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based solely on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case established important precedents for ensuring fairness in jury selection, particularly in preventing racial discrimination.
Bostock v. Clayton County: Bostock v. Clayton County is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2020 that determined that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision expanded the interpretation of 'sex' in the law to include these categories, significantly impacting how equal protection is enforced in employment contexts.
Brown v. Board of Education: Brown v. Board of Education is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1954 that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, effectively overturning the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson. This decision fundamentally reshaped the landscape of civil rights in America and emphasized the principle of equal protection under the law.
Civil Rights Movement: The Civil Rights Movement was a pivotal struggle for social justice in the United States, primarily during the 1950s and 1960s, aimed at ending racial discrimination and securing equal rights for African Americans. This movement not only addressed segregation and voting rights but also challenged broader societal norms and injustices, laying the foundation for future civil rights advocacy and shaping legislation that ensured equal protection under the law.
Craig v. Boren: Craig v. Boren is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1976 that established the standard of intermediate scrutiny for gender discrimination claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved an Oklahoma law that allowed women to purchase beer at age 18 while requiring men to wait until age 21, raising important questions about gender-based classifications and their justification. This decision marked a significant shift in how courts evaluate laws that discriminate based on gender.
Crawford v. Marion County: Crawford v. Marion County is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2008 that upheld Indiana's voter identification law, which required voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. The decision emphasized the state's interest in preventing voter fraud and maintaining the integrity of elections, while also addressing concerns about equal access to voting rights for all citizens.
Equal Protection Clause: The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This clause serves as a critical safeguard against discrimination, ensuring that individuals in similar situations are treated equally under the law, and it is central to understanding civil rights and liberties in the U.S.
Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights are basic human rights that are considered essential to the individual's freedom and dignity, protected from government interference. These rights form a crucial part of constitutional law and are often identified in the Bill of Rights, ensuring that all individuals enjoy protections against discrimination and injustice. The concept is deeply intertwined with the principles of due process and equal protection under the law, which serve to uphold these fundamental rights in various legal contexts.
Gender discrimination: Gender discrimination refers to the unfair treatment or unequal opportunities given to individuals based on their gender. This form of discrimination can occur in various contexts, including the workplace, education, and social situations, and is often linked to stereotypes and societal norms regarding gender roles. It raises significant concerns under the principle of equal protection, as it challenges the notion that all individuals should be treated equally under the law regardless of their gender.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1971 that established the principle of adverse impact in employment discrimination law. The Court ruled that employment practices must be job-related and consistent with business necessity, as policies that disproportionately affect minorities are discriminatory even if they are not intentionally biased. This case solidified the concept of equal protection under employment law by ensuring that discriminatory practices based on testing and hiring criteria are challenged.
Intermediate Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny is a standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws that classify individuals based on characteristics such as gender or legitimacy. This level of scrutiny requires that the government demonstrate that the law serves an important governmental objective and that the means employed to achieve that objective are substantially related to that goal, balancing the rights of individuals with the interests of the state.
J.E.B. v. Alabama: J.E.B. v. Alabama is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1994 that addressed the issue of gender discrimination in the jury selection process. The ruling determined that the use of peremptory strikes based solely on a juror's gender violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, reinforcing that both men and women have equal rights to participate in jury service without facing discrimination.
McCleskey v. Kemp: McCleskey v. Kemp was a landmark Supreme Court case from 1987 that addressed the issue of racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty. The case revolved around the claim that the death penalty in Georgia was administered in a racially biased manner, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision held that statistical evidence showing racial disparities was insufficient to prove intentional discrimination in McCleskey's specific case, setting a significant precedent for future cases regarding equal protection and racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.
McDonnell Douglas Framework: The McDonnell Douglas Framework is a legal standard used in employment discrimination cases to evaluate whether an employer's actions are discriminatory. It provides a structured approach for plaintiffs to prove that discrimination occurred by establishing a prima facie case and shifting the burden of proof to the employer. This framework has become a critical tool in assessing equal protection claims in employment settings, particularly when direct evidence of discrimination is not available.
Obergefell v. Hodges: Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2015 that ruled same-sex marriage is a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision connected deeply with the principles of equality, liberty, and due process, asserting that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates their fundamental rights and protections under the Constitution.
Plessy v. Ferguson: Plessy v. Ferguson is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1896 that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of 'separate but equal.' This case established a legal foundation for segregation laws, reinforcing systemic racial discrimination and influencing civil rights for decades.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions in the workplace. It ensures that women affected by pregnancy are treated the same as other employees with similar abilities or limitations, promoting equal protection under the law for pregnant women in terms of hiring, promotions, and job security.
Racial discrimination: Racial discrimination refers to the unfair or unequal treatment of individuals based on their race or ethnicity, often manifesting in various social, economic, and legal contexts. This form of discrimination can lead to significant disparities in opportunities, rights, and protections under the law. It is fundamentally linked to the principle of equal protection, which seeks to ensure that all individuals receive the same legal rights regardless of their racial background.
Rational Basis Test: The rational basis test is a standard of review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative classifications or government actions. It requires that a law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, providing a relatively low bar for the government to meet in order to justify its actions. This test is often applied in cases involving economic regulation, social welfare, and non-fundamental rights.
Reverse Discrimination: Reverse discrimination refers to the practice of giving preferential treatment to individuals from historically marginalized groups in order to counteract past injustices or inequalities. This term is often discussed in the context of affirmative action policies and legal cases, where the goal is to promote equal opportunities for disadvantaged groups while sometimes leading to claims that it unfairly disadvantages individuals from majority groups. The debate surrounding reverse discrimination is complex and involves balancing equity with fairness.
Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, establishing a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion under the constitutional right to privacy. This ruling set a precedent that impacted laws and policies concerning reproductive rights, showcasing the dynamic interplay between individual rights and state interests in the context of the Constitution.
Romer v. Evans: Romer v. Evans is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1996 that struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that denied protected status to individuals based on their sexual orientation. This case is significant in the context of equal protection as it established that laws which discriminate against a particular group, in this case, the LGBTQ+ community, are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rucho v. Common Cause: Rucho v. Common Cause is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2019 that addressed the issue of partisan gerrymandering, ruling that claims of partisan gerrymandering present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. This decision has significant implications for the principle of equal protection under the law, as it limits judicial intervention in cases where electoral district maps are drawn to favor a particular political party.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an influential Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was a trailblazer for gender equality and women's rights, playing a pivotal role in key cases that advanced the principle of equal protection under the law, as well as influencing constitutional interpretation and legal advocacy.
Shaw v. Reno: Shaw v. Reno is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1993 that addressed the issue of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina. The Court ruled that redistricting plans that are drawn primarily based on race can violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, highlighting the balance between ensuring fair representation for minorities and preventing discrimination against other groups.
Shelley v. Kraemer: Shelley v. Kraemer is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1948 that addressed the enforceability of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds. The ruling established that while private parties may create such covenants, state courts cannot enforce them without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision marked a significant step towards ending racial discrimination in housing, linking the case to broader civil rights issues.
Strict Scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts to evaluate laws or government actions that infringe upon fundamental rights or involve suspect classifications, such as race or religion. Under this standard, the government must demonstrate that its action serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least restrictive means. This level of scrutiny connects deeply with various constitutional principles, particularly in assessing equal protection and due process claims.
Suspect Classifications: Suspect classifications refer to categories of individuals that are subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to historical discrimination or inadequate representation. This concept often includes classifications based on race, national origin, and religion, where laws that discriminate against these groups are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. Laws that treat individuals differently based on these classifications must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Thurgood Marshall: Thurgood Marshall was the first African American Supreme Court Justice, serving from 1967 to 1991. He is best known for his advocacy in civil rights, particularly in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His legal career and judicial philosophy were instrumental in advancing the cause of equality under the law and ensuring that equal protection principles were upheld.
United States v. Armstrong: United States v. Armstrong is a significant Supreme Court case from 1996 that addressed the issue of selective prosecution and equal protection under the law. The case involved defendants claiming that they were unfairly prosecuted based on their race, highlighting the critical balance between prosecutorial discretion and the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law. This ruling emphasized the necessity of showing discriminatory intent in claims of selective prosecution, reinforcing the importance of equal protection principles in judicial processes.
Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act is a landmark piece of federal legislation enacted in 1965 aimed at eliminating various forms of racial discrimination in voting. It was designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, particularly for African Americans in the South who faced systemic barriers when trying to register to vote or participate in elections.
Women's rights movement: The women's rights movement is a social and political effort aimed at achieving equality for women in various aspects of life, including legal rights, economic opportunities, and social status. This movement has evolved over time, with key milestones such as the fight for suffrage, reproductive rights, and equal pay, significantly impacting the legal landscape regarding gender equality and civil rights.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins: Yick Wo v. Hopkins is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1886, which addressed issues of equal protection under the law and discrimination against Chinese immigrants. The case involved a San Francisco ordinance that required laundries to be operated in brick or stone buildings, disproportionately impacting Chinese-owned laundries while exempting others. The ruling established that laws applied in a discriminatory manner violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, solidifying the principle that equal protection must be afforded to all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity.