Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment
Levels of Scrutiny
– Equal Protection Clauses (5th and 14th Amendments) – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
– Generally: The court applies different levels of scrutiny to equal protection challenges and the level of scrutiny depends on whether the court is suspicious of the classification used by the legislature. There are four levels of review:
o Minimum rationality, minimum rationality with a bite, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny
– G/R: Rational Basis – Most of Equal Protection challenges are reviewed under the rational basis standard of review. The rational basis test is a deferential approach.
o When the court applies the minimum rationality standard of review, it routinely rubberstamps the law even if it is unwise, unnecessary, or unfair
o The legislature can usually treat groups differently rather than equally without violating the EPC
o Standard of Review: A law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose
§ A whole irrationally means to achieve any legitimate legislative objective will violate the EPC
§ If the classification is designed to achieve an illegitimate purpose it will violate the EPC
§ Legitimate purposes include health, welfare, safety, environment, consumer protection, morals, and general welfare
· If the court can hypothesize any legitimate end that the government might have had in mind that hypothesized legitimate end is permissible
o Burden: The party challenging the rationality of the legislation
o Does not matter if the statute is under inclusive or over inclusive
o Applies if the law does not fall under any of the other categories – it is the default
– Minimum Rationality is Inappropriate if the challenged legislation classifies:
o Along suspect or quasi suspect lines (race, ethnicity, gender, alienage, legitimacy of birth) or
o Deprives people of constitutionally significant liberty and or fundamental right
§ If these two exceptions are unavailable as a general rule the courts will apply the minimum rationality test
– G/R: Minimum Rationality With a Bite: Applies if the court suspects that the challenged legislation is a product of a desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The courts frequently examine the means-end relationship in terms of under and over inclusiveness that it fails to dispel the suspicion that the classification is based on animus.
o Under Inclusion: Occurs when a state benefits or burdens people in a manner that furthers a legitimate public purpose but does not confer the same benefit or place this same burden on others who are similarly situated. People who should be cover
Equal Protection Clause
o Animus toward a particular group
o Deterrence of out of state indignant or out of state people who migrate to a state in order to obtain welfare
o Attempts to create fixed permanent distinctions between long time state residents and recent arrivals who are bona fide state residents
o An intent to prevent a group’s enjoyment of a fundamental right
Minimum Rationality Review
– Tolerance for Over inclusiveness
o NY Transit Authority v Beazer (1979): City regulation prevented those in methadone maintenance programs from holding positions with the transit authority. The regulation was upheld even though it was over inclusive since the majority of the patients in the program for at least one year are drug free.
– Other Cases Upholding the Statute Under Minimum Rationality
o Minnesota v Clover Leaf Creamery (1981): MN law banned sale of milk in plastic containers and only allowed them for the sale in non-refillable paperboard milk cartons. Legitimate state purposes were promoting resource conservation, easing solid waste disposal problems, and conserving energy
