Select Page

Constitutional Law I
Southern Illinois University School of Law
McGreal, Paul E.

Con law Part 2
I.                   Equal Protection
a)Intro
b)14th Amendment: 1)Privileges and Immunities, and 2)Equal protection of the laws.
c)No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws- it protects everyone, even though those who are illegal.( not every group gets protected in the same way)
d)     Problem with the Equal Protection Clause- is that every law discriminates. It applies to every law. If interpret too aggressively, they can then strike some balances.
e) Equal Protection Analysis (essay question)
1.      Indentify the proper test
2.       Apply the test
3.      We believe that there are three test of equal protection.
f) Three tests: does the govt. have a sufficient purpose or interest that it’s servicing is the classification sufficiently related.
1.      Strict – Compelling purpose, necessary or narrowly tailored to achieving its purpose  
2.      Intermediate- important govt. purpose, and classification be substantially related to achieving that purpose.
                  2a. Heightened rational basis review.
3.      Rational Basis –a legitimate interest and show that the classification being challenged is rationally related to achieving the state interest.
g) 1st ask what classification does it create: 1)Race, ethnicity, national origin- strict, 2) gender legitimacy ( benefits of children born in out of wedlock)- Intermediate, 3) everything else- rational basis review.
h)Relationship –
a)      Over-inclusiveness- covers more conduct than is necessary to achieve the govt purpose
b)      Under inclusive- does not cover conduct that threatens the govt. purpose.
c)      Ex. Speed limit- what is being treated differently from each other.
1.      Rational Basis- legitimate purpose, which is safety and health.
2.       Are there some people who drive over 80 drives safely or poses a bigger risk?
3.      Not all drivers are safe at every speed. Then you will have other drivers whose conduct is not even addressed at all.
d)     Ex. Law that is more reasonable- could produce inconsistency of the law. Bias and prejudice- the greater opportunity to make it into a strict scrutiny standard.
I)            Alaska Equal Protection: Constitutional Law or Common Law?
a)    The court asks whether the discrimination is justified given both the, 1. The Governments purpose in enacting the law, and 2. The means used to achieve those ends, which are sufficiently related to achievement of the end.
b)   NY City Auth. V. Beazer: NYCTA decided that it would not hire methadone users to protect the public from unsafe subway workers. The end is Passanger safety the Means is not hiring the methadone users.
1)   Test: 1) whether public safety was permissible gvt purpose?
2)   Do Methadone users threaten the Govt. purpose?
3)   14th Amen Sec. 1
4)   The Perfect fit test- would mean that all methadone users are unsafe while no methadone users are safe. But because that is not the case the policy is over inclusive to the extent applied to people who did not threaten the govt. purpose, and it was under-inclusive to the extent it did not apply to people who did threaten the govt. purpose.
c)   Pure means end test- requires careful identification, weighing, and balancing. This sort of decision making is urged on legislatures and admin agencies who are charged with finding the best solution to real world problems. This analysis has been used to determine whether the government acted out in prejudice or bias: Three Categories:
1)      Race, Ethnicity, and alienage
2)      Gender
3)      All others
d) Race, Ethnicity and Alienage ( Strict)
1)       The Ct applies: Strict Scrutiny: a two part test, which allows few permissible purposes that are compelling and requires a tight fit between the means and ends.
2)      Racial classification must be “ NARROWLY TAILORED or NECESSARY” to achieve the govt. compelling purpose.
a)      Reasons 4 application: 1)Race rarely relevant to govt. action, 2)when the govt. used race it was used negatively, 3) to oppress or harm a disfavored group, AND 4) redressability through a political system will be difficult and thus may cause them to be ignored due to prejudice, bias, indifference, or ignorance by the majority.
b)      Race is termed” Suspect class” – is inherently suspect.
c)      Once, in our Const. History, was racial classification upheld: Korematzu v. US: where the ct addressed the internment of Japanese American as a necessary protection to US Security. Thus it was necessary to keep Japanese intern as a prophylactic measure to the war. The CT. has deferred the military areas as exceptions to the Const.
d)     In Aderand Construction v. Pena and City of Richmond v. Croson, the court held that the govt. was compelling reason to remedy identified past discrimination. The Govt. had to prove that either the govt. itself had discrimination in the past or that specific private actors or groups of private actors have discriminated in the recent past.
e)   Gender: Intermediate Scrutiny
1.   Gender cases had had a tortuous past. The problem generally arose do to womens status in society
2.   Craig v. Boren, a case where the state law was to be enacted where men 21 yr old and women 18 old could not purchase beer 3.2% of alcohol under the said ages because the purpose was to protect safety from public roadways from drunk drivers, which were said to have been in greater stats. Significance of men.
a)       IntermediateTest developed two parts: 1) the government action must serve an important purpose, 2) the gender classification must be substantially related to achieving the govt. important purpose.
b)      The Fit test should be considered here although, gender is not as suspect as race.
f)    All others:   None Suspect Class- Rational
1.    Rational basis review:
a)      The govt, only need have a legitimate purpose and the challenged classification

. Court stated that the Officer Officer’s upon entering into the advanced ages cannot be as versatile and that experts of the Apellee that increasing age signify decreasing physical ability. Officers after age 40 must pass physical examinations and Officer Murgia passed all the exams 4 months prior to being retired. The three experts demonstrated that age mattered when performing in hi stress situations, but also stated that 50 year old could also perform well but that they would have to be induced into taking more exams. The Dist. Ct. decided unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny because the police officer is not from a suspect class.
Issue: Whether the Mass Law that requires state police officer’s to be retired upon his attaining age 50 violates the equal protection of the laws under the 14th amendment?
Rule: Rational Basis analysis- that the legislature purpose is consistent with the equal protection of the laws.
Analysis: The S.Ct. stated that mandatory retirement at age 50 the legislature seeks to protect the public by assuring physical prepared of its uniformed police. The purpose of retirement at age 50 s rationally related to the states objective.   The court stated that that the fact that the police officer was retired because of his age does not make the statute unwise, however, imperfect is to reach its objective in keeping the community safe.
Conclusion: The judgment was reversed, stating that the Mass law did not violate the equal protection clause of the appelle.
Dissent: Marshall, believed that the majority had applied the wrong test to this case on age discrimination because he believes that age is an part of a elderly class. The court states that whether or not the groups is classified under the suspect class, that it cannot be disputed that elderly repeatedly suffer from arbitrary employment discrimination. He stated that because the tests were performed and could be a good measure of physical agility then the officer should have remained on the job. Compared the officer to pilots who are over the age of 60 the physical exams have not predictive ability to assess whether the exams function or not.
a)      Rational related- the PL officer- claimed that a stricter scrutiny needed to be addresses. They stated that that employment is not a fundamental right and thus no strict scrutiny.
b)      Under the equal protection clause-