Equal Protection Flashcards by Jena Richer

constitutional prongs

EQUAL PROTECTION

EP clauses of 14th amendment, applies only to state and local gov
EP is applied to fed gov through DP clause of 5th amendment

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

general basis

EQUAL PROTECTION

whenever gov draws distinction between people = there is a basis for EP claim

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

approach

EQUAL PROTECTION

all EP Qs/cases can be broken down into 3 steps
1. what is the classification?
= how is the gov drawing distinction btwn people
2. what is the level of scrutiny?
3. does the gov action meet the level of scrutiny?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

scrutiny

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

strict scrutiny

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

facially discriminatory

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

= law in its very terms draws a distinction between people based on race/national origin

EXAMPLES

only white males can be jurors
school segregation laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

facially neutral

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

requires demonstrating BOTH

discriminatory impact AND
discriminatory intent

EXAMPLE
discriminatory use of preemptory challenges based on race = unconstitutional

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

classifications benefitting minorities

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

strict scrutiny still used, whether classification is invidious or benign

EXAMPLES

diversity quota/set-asides
affirmative action
school desegregations

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

school desegregation

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

use of race in assigning students to elementary and high schools must meet strict scrutiny

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

scrutiny

GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

EITHER modified intermediate scrutiny OR rational basis review

EXCEPTION = discriminatory law benefiting women

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

facially discriminatory

GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

= law in its very terms draws a distinction between people based on gender

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

facially neutral

GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

requires demonstrating BOTH

discriminatory impact AND
discriminatory intent

EXAMPLE
discriminatory use of preemptory challenges on basis of sex = unconstitutional

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

scrutiny for classifications benefitting women

GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

intermediate scrutiny used

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

types of classifications benefitting women

GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

more specific rules for gender classifications benefitting women

based on role stereotypes = not allowed
designed to remedy past discrimination or differences in opportunities = will be allowed

EXAMPLE
AL law that women get alimony, men don’t = not allowed

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

definition

ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

= laws that discriminate against non-US citizens

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

scrutiny

ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

generally, strict scrutiny used
BUT 3 exceptions where court has used less than strict scrutiny
1. political function
2. federal law
3. undocumented alien kids

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

political function

ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

only rational basis test used for alienage classification IF
related to self-government or democratic process
= gov can discriminate against non-citizens with regard to
1. voting
2. serving on a jury
3. being a judge, police officer, teacher, or probation officer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

federal law

ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

only rational basis review for congressional discrimination against aliens (like ICE) because fed gov has plenary power over immigration

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

undocumented alien children

ALIENAGE CLASSIFICATIONS

appears intermediate scrutiny review for discrimination against undocumented alien children

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

definition

LEGITIMACY CLASSIFICATIONS

Study These Flashcards

= discrimination against non-marital children

scrutiny

LEGITIMACY CLASSIFICATIONS

Study These Flashcards

intermediate scrutiny is used

law benefitting marital kids

LEGITIMACY CLASSIFICATIONS

Study These Flashcards

laws that provides a benefit to all marital kids but not non-marital kids
= always unconstitutional
(intermediate scrutiny used, but always invalidated)

law benefitting non-marital kids

LEGITIMACY CLASSIFICATIONS

Study These Flashcards

law that provides a benefit to some non-marital kids but denies it to other non-marital kids
= treated case-by-case with intermediate scrutiny

6 non-suspect classifications

EQUAL PROTECTION

Study These Flashcards

age discrimination
disability discrimination
wealth discrimination
education discrimination
economic regulations
sexual orientation discrimination
= generally get only rational basis

scrutiny/basis for economic regulations challenges

EQUAL PROTECTION

Study These Flashcards

gets only rational basis

REGARDLESS of whether challenge comes under EP or DP clause

sexual orientation discrimination | EQUAL PROTECTION

probably gets only rational basis - only three cases - one case used rational basis - other two cases (most recent) didn't say

2 suspect classifications | EQUAL PROTECTION

1. race/national origin 2. alienage = get more than rational basis STRICT SCRUTINY

2 quasi-suspect classifications | EQUAL PROTECTION

1. gender 2. legitimacy = get more than rational basis INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY

de jure discrimination | EQUAL PROTECTION

AKA by right | = discrimination created by law

de facto discrimination | EQUAL PROTECTION

AKA by effect | = discrimination created by voluntary/organic practice

fundamental rights protected by EP clause | EQUAL PROTECTION

1. Right to vote | 2. Right to travel

right to vote | EQUAL PROTECTION

- Fundamental right to vote in national, state, and local elections - Restrictions on voting, other than those based on age, residency, and citizenship are generally invalid

4 invalid restrictions | RIGHT TO VOTE

- Racial restrictions (under 15th amendment) - Requirement that voters have children in order to vote in school board election - Poll taxes - Property ownership (except water district elections)

2 valid restrictions | RIGHT TO VOTE

- Presentation of picture IDs | - Proof of residency for short period (30-50 days)

constitutional prong | RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY

Same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry protected by a convergence of both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

2 ways to trigger strict scrutiny under EP | EQUAL PROTECTION

1. Suspect classification | 2. Fundamental right

inability to pay fee | WEALTH CLASSIFICATION

inability to pay a governmentally required fee cannot be the sole basis upon which a person is deprived of fundamental constitutional right

abortions | WEALTH CLASSIFICATION

SC upheld governmental refusal to pay for abortions = woman does not have a fundamental constitutional right to obtain abortion services, instead has a fundamental right to choose w/o gov interference

mental illness/disability | DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION

- GENERALLY not suspect classification = subject only to deferential rational basis review - IN APPLICATION, courts have often applied “rational basis plus bite” review

rational basis plus bite review | DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION

= a somewhat less deferential version of rational basis review EXAMPLE in 1985, SC struck down TX zoning ordinance that prevented building a home for the mentally disabled, even though SC declared that the mentally disabled were not a suspect or quasi-suspect class

affirmative action scrutiny | RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

ALL race-based affirmative-action programs = evaluated under strict scrutiny

valid affirmative action | RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

programs more likely to be upheld if there's proof of 1. history of discrimination AND 2. current underrepresentation

invalid affirmative action | RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

even with required proof, programs will fail if they a. set specific quota b. set numerical targets c. give extra points to minority students solely based on their race AKA programs that use race as a "soft variable" are more likely to upheld

diversity as compelling gov interest | RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN CLASSIFICATIONS

(schools) achieving diverse student body = YES, compelling gov interest (non-school settings) increasing minority presence and achieving racial balance = NO, not compelling gov interests by themselves

single-sex schools rule | GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

= potentially equal, thus potentially constitutional | UNLIKE single-race schools

single-sex schools alternative | GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

single-sex admissions policy = unconstitutional when only alternative does not offer substantially similar curriculum

modified intermediate scrutiny | GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

modified intermediate scrutiny IF a. gender-based classification on face of the statute OR b. intent to discriminate based on gender = intermediate scrutiny PLUS additional requirement that gov have an EXCEEDINGLY PERSUASIVE JUSTIFICATION (instead of important gov interest)

rational basis review | GENDER CLASSIFICATIONS

rational basis review IF a. facially neutral AND b. no intent to discriminate

Equal Protection Flashcards

(47 cards)