Equal Protection – similarly-situated people must be treated similarly
Source – 14th Amendment is limited to state action
– 14th Am requires that no state shall deny any person the equal protection of the laws
– EP analysis determines whether a state is constitutionally permitted to differentiate between persons
– EPC is implicated where the government makes a classification and essentially guarantees that people who are similarly situated will be treated similarly
I. Rational Basis Review – A law will be uphold if it is rationally related to a legitimate interest. It is difficult to fail this test, so most governmental action examined under this standard is upheld unless it is arbitrary or irrational.
o Burden of proof on challenger because laws are presumed valid
o Deference to legislature’s decision that a law is rational
· Loose fitting laws are permissible; need not be the best law that could have been written to achieve the legislative goal
· Need not go far at all toward a conceivable goal; the court will uphold a law taking a “first step” toward any legitimate goal even if the court thinks the law is unwise
A. Traditional Deference – all that is required is that the means-end relationship be close enough that its rationality is “debatable” a very loose fit between means and ends will be acceptable
o Mass Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976)– statute requires police officers to retire at age 50 for safety reasons by having physically fit officers; although its under and over inclusive its passes RBR because there’s a link to a permissive purpose
· Used RBR because it’s not a suspect class; everybody ages and it bears relation to ability to perform on the job
o NYC Transit v. Beazer (1979)– NY statute that wouldn’t allow them to employ narcotic users; methadone users challenged this; extremely deferential standard because as long as the transit company could reasonably believe the methadone users were less employable, they did not actually have to be less employable
· Used RBR because narcotic users are not a suspect class
o Minnesota v. Clover Leaf (1981)– statute prohibiting the sale of non-reusable, non-returnable milk contains but didn’t prevent paper ones; statute said it was an environmental issue although there may have been some preference for the Minnesota pulp industry; withstands RBR because it’s not the court’s role to determine if the basis was wrong but only whether it was reasonable to believe there was a rational relationship between the classification and a legitimate purpose
· Whether or not the statute will in fact achieve any of its objectives is irrelevant. The only question is whether the legislature “could rationally have decided” that it would meet these objectives. The burden is on the challengers to show that “the legislative facts on which a classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decision-maker.”
· Here, whether the classification scheme would meet one or more of these objectives was at least debatable. By that fact alone, it cannot be said that the legislature acted irrationally, and the statute must be upheld.
o US Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz (1981) – windfall provision for those who worked for at least 10 years in RR and 10 years outside; eliminated the windfall; they could have eliminated the benefit entirely but, although this wasn’t a perfect solution, it’s at least rationally related (step-by-step)
· Majority said to look what the legislature did and its effect to determine the purpose; no evidence of purpose required
· Dissent says there’s no rational relation; you must separate the classifications and purpose in order to properly analyze EP
o Nordlinger v. Hahn (1992) – statute eliminating interest rates based on assessment value at the time of purchase; newer homeowners paid more than older homeowners; court’s hypothesized purpose was community stability, continuity and historic preservation; purpose only needed to be conceivable
· Upheld the statute under RBR; reliance interest to low income families
B. More Demanding Rationality Review – doesn’t hypothesize purpose; looks for the actual purpose; usually finds naked antagonism
o U.S. Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) – statute requiring food stamp applicants to be family members in order to receive benefits; not a permissible purpose because it’s used to harm a particular group (hippie commune’s) when the purpose should be to feed families
· More bite because the classification makes no sense; purpose is to feed hungry families
o City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985) – permit for a group home for slow individuals was denied because of a zoning statute not allowing group homes; fails RBR when the court hypothesizes purpose rather than the stated purpose; court says this is an illegitimate purpose and irrational prejudice; invalid as applied; regulates similarly-situated parties differently, without legitimate reason
· Not suspect class because trait bears a substantial relation to ability to participate in and contribute to society
o Zobel v. Williams – (1982) Alaskan residents received a windfall from minerals based on length of residency; this statute does not survive RBR because the purposes put forth are not rationally related to the classification
· 3 reasons put forth:
§ Incentive for people to move and stay there; court says irrational because they’re giving credit to those already there
§ encouragement of prudent management of the permanent fund; retroactive application makes no sense here should be benefit just moving forward, not prudent
§ reward people for past contributions; illegitimate purpose, naked preferenc
976) – standardized test for police officers where black applicants didn’t succeed at the same rate as whites; neutral law but discriminatory effect; the court says the purpose must be discriminatory in order to trigger SS; here it survives RBR because it rationally may be said to serve a legitimate purpose
o McCleskey v. Kemp (SC, 1987) – black man accused of shooting a police officer wanted to introduct evidence that black people get the death penalty at a higher rate than whites which would be violative of the 14th and 8th Am rights, but his statistical evidence couldn’t prove purposeful discrimination because it is impossible to get into the mind of the particular study; the impact was not so stark, like Yick Wo , to show a discriminatory purpose
o Regents of California v. Bakke (SC, 1978) – UCLA Medical school set aside 16/100 seats for minority students; this is a race classification and deserves SS; powell wrote the opinion of the court but no one joined him saying that the program is unconstitutional but race is appropriate if narrowly tailored; Brennan 4 would have used IS because it’s a remedial race classification but thought the program was fine; Stevens 4 would not have decided this on EP grounds
o Grutter v. Bollinger (SC, 2003) – U of Michigan’s law school’s diversity program is upheld under SS because its used as a soft variable; means are narrowly tailored to a compelling purpose
· First time “strict in theory, fatal in fact” doesn’t hold up after Korematsu
o Gratz v. Bollinger (SC, 2003) – Automatic 20 points in admissions application for racial minorities fails Strict Scrutiny because it isn’t narrowly tailored. Although diversity is a compelling interest, the point system looks too much like a quota system, rather than a plus factor. There could be less restrictive means to accomplish this purpose.
o Parents v. Seattle School District (SC, 2007) – diversity in lower education is not proved as a compelling purpose; here, there is no history of past purposeful discrimination so can’t be claimed to be a remedial effort; also, the number system to promote racial diversity is no good compared to a soft variable to promote general diversity, so not narrowly tailored
· In one school it was no history of past purposeful discrimination
· Other school, specific number system
