Strict Scrutiny and Suspect Classifications: Race and Ethnicity Flashcards
What do suspect classifications trigger?
Suspect classifications are presumptively void and thus trigger strict scrutiny. There are 3 suspect classes, race, ethnicity, or national origin, and lawful resident alienage.
3 suspect classes
race, ethnicity, or national origin, and lawful resident alienage.
What was the equal protection clause originally intended to address?
racial classifications.
***For a legislative classification to be constitutionally suspect, the challenger must prove what?
that the classification is intentionally discriminatory—it was adopted to use the suspect criterion (ex. Race) as the basis for classification. Three ways to establish this (p. 670)
Facially Discriminatory Classifications (Strauder v. West Virginia Case): written right into the law.
Neutral classifications applied in a discriminatory fashion. (looks neutral but applied to burden one group more than the other. Yick Wo.
Neutral classifications motivated by discrimination that produces a discriminatory effect. (Gomillion v. Lightfoot)
Washington v. Davis
Facts: Officer Applicants in the District of Columbia were required to take and pass a qualifying examination that measured “verbal ability, vocabulary, reading and comprehension.” 4x as many African Americans failed the test. Respondents filed sued alleging the test had a discriminatory impact. DC granted SJ in favor of the city.
Rule: A rule that a statute designed to serve neutral ends is valid with compelling justification, if in practice it benefits or burdens one race more than another
Arlington Heights Factors
A clear pattern that cannot be explained except on the basis of race (Gomillion)
Historical background of the law, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invidious purposes
Events leading up to adoption of law
Departures from normal procedures or normal substantive considerations
Legislative or administrative history
Personnel Administrator v. Feeney
the Court upheld a Massachusetts law that preferred military veterans to nonveterans in civil service hiring.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I)
Facts: Black children seek the admission to public schools on a non-segregated basis.
Rule: Separate but equal abolished.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Facts: The Respondent, Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
Rule: *Although race may be a factor in determining admission to public educational institutions, it may not be a sole determining factor.
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
Facts: A minority set-aside provision program was held to violate a white contractor’s equal rights because it violates both prongs of equal protection strict scrutiny analysis.
Rule: All laws that discriminate on the basis of race, including those that discriminate against whites, are subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Facts: The petitioner claims that the Federal Government’s practice of giving general contractors on government projects a financial incentive to hire subcontractors controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals violates the equal protection of the Fifth Amendment.
Rule: Any person, of whatever race, has the right to demand that any governmental actor subject to the Constitution justify any racial classification subjecting that person to unequal treatment under the strictest judicial scrutiny.
- See book for notes
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (Did not have a quota here)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the University of Michigan Law School’s long-standing practice of considering soft factors in admitting students and its commitment to promote racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of minority students from historically discriminated groups. The petitioner, sued alleging discrimination against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule: All racial classifications imposed by government “must be analyzed by a court under strict scrutiny.” Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244(2003)
Facts: The petitioners challenged the admissions program of the University of Michigan alleging that it treated them less favorably on the basis of race in considering their application for admission.
Rule: All racial classifications reviewable under the Equal Protection Clause must be strictly scrutinized and respondents must demonstrate that the University’s use of race in its admission program employs narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests.
