EPC Flashcards
(29 cards)
LA required train companies to separate passengers by race. Maj created “separate but equal” doctrine. Harlan dissented and said EPC prohibits laws that deprive people of rights based on race and EPC was supposed to remedy effects of slavery and LA law would be in direct conflict of EPC’s purpose.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Consolidation of cases to strike segregated schools. Separate but Equal violates EPC under 14A. Says PLessy maj was wrong and there is something psychologically harmful about Jim Crow bc telling you that you’re inferior. Court discussed original meaning/intent of framers, but rely on other sources of meaning
Brown v. Board of Education
Court creates system where each school district had to be individually litigate. This was not a ruling/order to integrate right away. Court said admit students asap, but delay may be allowed for public interest (so doesn’t cause a lot of trouble). Court did not want to go too fast (“with all deliberate speed”)
Brown II
First case to articulate strict scrutiny test based on race and national origin. Test does not hold gov and exec order of internment camps to tight fit that’s necessary when want to use race as classification - there is no per se ban on race classifications. Upheld bc national security was compelling purpose that was narrowly tailored to achieve bc no way to identify which Japanese Americans were disloyal.
Korematsu
VA law prohibiting interracial marriage to protect white supremacy was NOT a compelling purpose. Law based on race not ok bc it treats different races equally (like VA argued). SC rejects notion that mere equal protection of a statute containing racial classifications in enough to remove the classifications from the 14A proscription of all invidious racial discrimination. Would not even pass RBR bc Court could not find any legitimate purpose.
Loving v. Virginia
City’s policy gave positive consideration to Ks submitted by plumbing contracting companies who stated in their bids they intended to use a certain # of minority-owned subcontractors. SC explicitly rejected “remedying societal discrimination” as compelling state interest (end) and has rejected explicit numerical quotas as insufficiently narrowly tailored (means) to survive strict scrutiny analysis.
City of Richmond v. Croson (General Rule for race-based affirmative action)
SOR is strict scrutiny bc citizen/non-citizen classification is suspect. History of discrimination, immutable (not really), political powerlessness bc can’t vote if not citizen. Exception 1: Self-gov - gov policies that make sure citizens are governed by citizens (incl state troopers - RBR)
2. Federal interest exception
Citizenship (Alienage)
First time SC invalidated a male/female classification, but only used RBR. Idaho law creates system for administering estate and said if man and women were tied for position, man would be automatically chosen. Explicit on face of the statute. EPC prohibits. State’s purpose was administrative convenience
Reed v. Reed (Old gender classifcation
Female air force member sued bc fed law said male members automatically can claim wife as dependent, but females could not. RBG argued this was a gender classification that should be heightened scrutiny. Court applied strict, however doesn’t set SS as SOR bc plurality until Craig. Administrative convenience is not compelling purpose (but is legitimate so would pass under RBR)
Frontiero v. Richardson (Plurality - old gender classification)
OK statute prohibits sale of 3.2% beer to men until age 20, but women can buy it at 18. OK said 2% of males in age group were arrested for DUIs, and only .2% for females. Purpose is traffic safety and drunk driving (is important purpose), but means wasn’t good enough bc gov gave stats but were not significant (did not show real difference b/w drivers) and were doing law based on stereotype. Law violated Const. bc failed IS.
Craig v. Boren (Intermediate Scrutiny for Gender Classification)
Prestigious State VA college (bootcamp) only avaliable to men. After CoA said violated EPC, college just for women opened up but not as prestigious. CAse adds that gov use of sex classification must satisfy an exceeding persuasive justification. (1) For gov to satisfy IS, purpose and/or means prong for gender class must be based on real (not bio) difference instead of stereotype (Women “not being capable” is not justified as some men also couldn’t.) (2) Gov must show someone was their actual purpose and not just purpose created for litigation (not as low as RBR)
US v. Virginia (Real differences vs gender stereotype - IS)
Ex of gov satisfying IS for non-biological difference b/w men and women. Court upholds gov’s use of sex classification - if male you must register for draft if female you don’t have to register. Draft ppl who are eligible for combat is important purpose. Court relies on real non-bio difference bc at time under US policy, only men were eligible and women were not. Real difference based on federal law, not bio traits.
Rostker v. Goldberg (Real Difference Gender Classification)
Court upheld sex classification for different crim sanction if sex w/ underage female then w/ underage male. At this time, court believed gov that classification was based on real difference. Purpose - court accepts purpose of law is to prevent teenage pregnancy as important purpose. USe of biological sex is substantially related to achieving that important purpose (tight fit)
Michael M
MS said mend could audit nurse classes but not enroll. Gov using classification grounded in gender stereotype. Corut said did not get over IS bar (poor fit)
Mississippi v. Hogan (Gender Classification)
AL law required male spouses to pay alimony but not female spouses violated EPC (did not pass IS). Purpose: help needy spouses was important gov purpose. Means of using sex classification isn’t a sufficiently tight fit to helping needy spouses (stereotype men always breadwinner)
Orr v. Orr (Gender Classification)
How much SS benefits you get is a function of how much you make in workplace - and how many years you get to count. SSA says female wage earner could exclude 3 more lower earning years (Get more benefits). Court said did not violate EPC. Purpose to reduce economic disparity (important). Means uses sex classification to accomplish goal of longstanding disparate economic treatment of women. Gender classifications benefiting women based on role stereotypes generally not allowed unless to remedy past discriminations.
Califano v. Webster (Gender Classification
NY law prohibiting banned advertising on sides of trucks, unless ads were for products of the truck’s owner does not violate EPC. Traffic safety is legit purpose. Means: problem is that if these ads are distracting then it doesn’t matter who owns ad (underinclusive), however court says it is rationally related to purpose.
Rule: Court upheld restriction on ads on sides of trucks despite the law being both over and underinclusive.
Railway Express Agency v. NY (Non-Suspect Classifications - RBR)
MA law forced police to retire at 50. Court held law did not violate EPC bc age is a non-suspect classification. Failed to meet Frontiero Factors to elicit heightened scrutiny. Older people haven’t experienced history of unequal treatment same way as race. Immutable trait bc can’t change age. But not politically powerless bc AARP has power and congressmen are older. End: making sure policy are fit (legit). Means: force to retire are 50 (RBR just requires loose fit, anything you could have thought to accomplish goal.
MA Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia (Age Classification is Non-Suspect - RBR)
Classifying on basis of socioeconomic status are non-supect and EPC does not confer children a fundamental right to a quality education.
San Antonio v. Rodriguez (Wealth/Socio-econ classification and Education - RBR)
Pursuant to city regulation, group home has to apply for special permit for that type of business before it started operating, and permit was denied. Court held this law violated EPC. Ps failed to get heightened scrutiny for disability classifications: there was history of purposeful discrimination but not as bad as race, no immutable trait and not politically powerless bc laws protect disabled. Court held only possible purpose for ordinance was animus toward class, thus failed RB+ (not legit purpose).
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (Disability Classification - non-suspect - RB+)
CO ballot initiative repealed all state/local laws that prohibited discrimination against gays and prevented future laws to protect gays. Court held this was unconstitutional and failed RB+. End: Gov argued purpose was to prevent discriminatory access to service. Ends was that no one gets special treatment. Gov was saying you can’t put someone on a pedestal, but court disagrees and purpose was based on animosity towards class. Means: amendment was overinclusive. However, holding limited, does not recognize sex orientation as suspect classification.
Romer v. Evans (Sex Orientation - non-suspect - RB+)
MA law required vets applying for civil service positions be considered before non-vets applying w/ same qualification (or even better). 98% of time vets were men, so men always getting jobs. Court found MA’s vet preference policy for hiring civil servants did not violate EPC and applied RBR. Exclusionary effect: Yes, high % of men was enough to prove EE. Exclusionary Purpose: P wanted courts to use tort lens to analyze purpose (foreseeable that preference would disproportionately effect), court rejects this. Helping vets (legit purpose) and rational relationship (RBR so this almost always met)
Personnel Administrator of MA v. Feeney (Non-Facial Sex Classification)
Applicants for police force in DC were required to take test and stats revealed blacks failed more often. Police using standardized test score as criteria for hiring did not violate 5A EPC. Ps were unsuccessful in proving non-facial racial classification so RBR. EE: Yes, higher % of blacks failed. EP: No, SC didn’t like idea of forcing a gov to justify if there was simply disparate impact.
Washington v. Davis (non-facial racial classification - no EP, RBR)
CA not considering pregnancy a disability for insurance does not violate EPC. Gov said law classified on basis of whether applicant is pregnant or not (non-supect classification). EE: yes, everyone effected is a woman. EP: No, purpose was for saving $ and if it extended coverage for pregnancy, it would be impossible to sustain on employee contributions alone. Does not classify based on gender as law includes non-pregnant women.
RBR: under-inclusiveness of program does not make it unconstitutional.
Rule: Physical characteristics are not proxies for exclusion on basis of a suspect/QS classification
Geduldig v. Aiello (Non-Facial Sex Classification - RBR)
