Chapter 8 - Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights Flashcards
(47 cards)
What word triggers an equal protection analysis?
“classification”
Do you have constitutional right to be treated the same as someone?
No, no right to be treated the same as long as the gov’t has a reason that is permissible.
Similarly situated people must be treated similarly (ex: felon + law-abiding citizen are NOT treated the same)
Who does the Equal Protection Clause apply to?
PERSONS
- thus, applies to people who are not citizens (aliens) and applies to corporations
When do you use a equal protection analysis and due process analysis?
If you see a classification, then use equal protection analysis.
If there is no classification, then use a due process analysis.
What classifications are suspect?
race (strict scrutiny)
illegitimacy and gender (intermediate review)
Each standard of review for equal protection cases must prove this:
purpose -> of challenged gov’t action
means -> how closely and carefully the means achieves its purpose
When do you apply the rational review test?
Apply to classifications that do NOT involve suspect classes or fundamental rights
(mostly economic or social-welfare legislation falls here)
purpose = legit/police power
means = reasonable + rationa
What are NON-suspect classifications where you would use the rational review test?
- age
- wealth
- mental illness/retardation
- sexual orientation
What is intermediate scrutiny and what class does it apply to?
purpose = important
means = substantially reasonable
Applies to gender and illegitimacy
What is strict scrutiny and what suspect classes does it apply to?
purpose = compelling
means = narrowly necessary (no less discriminatory alternatives that will accomplish goal)
Applies to race, national origin, fundamental rights and alienage
Strict scrutiny will only be applied when the differential treatment of the class is ______________ on the part of the government.
intentional
- if gov’t enacts statute that has merely unintended incidental effect of burdening, the courts will NOT use strict scrutiny (ex: Washington v. Davis)
Railway Express Agency v. New York (truck ad case)
Traffic regulation prohibits paid-for advertising on the side of a truck but allows advertising for the truck owner’s business, even though the owner’s advertising is just as distracting. NY statute that allowed trucks to advertise their own product, but not someone else’s.
- apply rational review test -> does NOT violate EPC of 14th amendment (state case)
reasonable? yes, state wants to protect from distractions and promote safety and can w/ exercising police power
RULE: If the classification has relation to the purpose for which it is made and does not contain the kind of discrimination against which the Equal Protection Clause affords protection it is allowable.
Strauder v. West Virginia
West Virginia enacted a statute limiting jury service to white males over the age of 21 who are state citizens. An all-white jury convicted Strauder, a black man, of murder. Strauder argues that his conviction by a jury selected under the West Virginia statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
RULE: state statute is unconstitutional and violated EPC of 14th amendment b/c limited to one race and is discriminatory on its face
If a law is discriminatory on its face, will the court require that it actually be discriminatory?
No, if the law is discriminatory on its face, the court will not require for the party to prove that the law was ACTUALLY discriminatory.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (laundry mat case)
Yick Wo was imprisoned for operating a laundry in a wooden building in violation of statute. That statute vested in the board of supervisors the discretion to grant or withhold licenses to operate laundries in wooden buildings. Yick Wo had operated the laundry in the same building for 22 years and fire wardens and safety inspectors had inspected the premises and found them safe. The board denied licenses to 200 out of the 200 Chinese-American applicants but denied only 1 out of the 80 non-Chinese Americans applicants.
RULE: An otherwise neutral law which does not draw line in race on law, if that law is administered with evil eye of racial discrimination, the court will strike down the application of the law, not the actual law
not discriminatory on its face –> turn to rational review (numbers showed that Chinese were only ones affected)
Brown v. Board of Education I (1954)
- overrules Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” idea
RULE: Separate educational facilities based on racial classifications are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Why? studies showed that children experiencing segregation felt inferior, unmotivated and would fail to be good citizens, tax payers and professionals
Bolling v. Sharpe (5th amendment school desegregation case)
RULE: liberty may not be restricted except to serve a legitimate government interest.
Public school segregation serves no legitimate government interest. Thus, differential treatment of African-American children deprives them of liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.
where discrimination is so fundamentally unfair as to offend the American ideal of fairness and justice then it violates the DP cl of the 5th Amend.
Brown v. Board of Education II (1955)
RULE: “All deliberate speed” —> Defendants must make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance; have burden to show additional time needed in public interest and consistent with good faith compliance at earliest date.
Local trial court was to oversee the desegregation of schools
Washington v. Davis (police test)
State-sponsored racial classification violates the equal protection provisions in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause ONLY if it is shown to have both a disproportionate impact on a particular race and is motivated by invidious racial discrimination.
- Here, state showed that the test was reasonable, neutral for race such that each policemen would be able to adequately do their job
- there MUST be purpose or intent (impact is not enough)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) applied for a permit from the Village of Arlington Heights (Village) to rezone a fifteen-acre parcel of land from its zoning classification as a `single-family use to a multiple-family use classification. MHDC planned to build a racially-integrated complex featuring nearly two hundred townhouse units marketed to low and moderate income tenants. The Village denied the permit request, and MHDC brought suit in federal district court alleging the denial of the permit was racially discriminatory and violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Fair Housing Act of 1968.
RULE: A state-sponsored racial classification will not be held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless a plaintiff shows that the law is motivated by a discriminatory purpose and has a discriminatory impact.
- nothing here showed that the decline of proposal was discriminatorily motivated
Racial balancing is…
illegitimate and unconstitutional + does not satisfy compelling purpose test (strict scrutiny)
ex: quotas are unconstitutional
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (med school admissions case)
Medical school admissions policy of holding 16 seats out of 100 for minority groups prevented over-qualify non-minority applicant to not be admitted while applicants were admitted w/ lower GPAs, MCAT scores and benchmark scores
RULE: EPC of 14th amendment violated = public university may not discriminate on the basis of race in its admissions policies even when doing so benefits members of minority races, and all such discriminatory racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny.
- med school could CONSIDER as a “plus” factor but it cannot be sole factor in decision making
Gratz v. Bollinger (20+ points case)
Two white people were denied admissions to school; school had 150 point scale policy but would automatically award 20+ points to minorities and two white students sued for EPC violation
RULE: A university’s admissions policy that automatically gives preference to minority students on the basis of race, without additional individualized consideration, violates the EPC of 14th amendment.
Gruter v. Bollinger (law school admissions)
Law school had unofficial admissions policy that sought to achieve diverse student body by giving “substantial weight” to race of each applicant w/ other variables; white lady didn’t get in and sued
RULE: Consideration of race as a factor in admissions by a state law school does not violate14th amendment b/c supporting student body diversity is a compelling state interest; however, the school MUST demonstrate it previously made a serious, good faith consideration of workable, race-neutral alternatives to achieve the sought-after racial diversity.
