Constitutional Law II Outline

CHAPTER VII. Equal Protection

Rational Basis & Rational Basis with a Bite

United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz
Facts. The retirement fund for railroad employees originally provided a windfall for those who were eligible for social security and railroad benefits. But, in 1974, Congress determined that the system would be bankrupt by 1981 if it continued to pay the windfall. Therefore, legislation was enacted to reduce the costs and make the program financially viable.
Rule. Congress needs just a rational basis for its social and economic legislation.
Held. The Court approves this legislation because Congress could assume those who had a current connection with RR under groups above were more likely than those who left the industry prior to 1974 and never returned to be among class of career RR person, which Act was designed for
Patterson. Only need a plausible reason an classifying person is legislative decision that is sometimes imperfect. This is the Supreme Court’s typical rational basis standard because only a plausible reason is needed. Legislation comes about through compromise and different members have differing reasons for supporting laws, which are not mentioned in congressional record, which is why Supreme Court defers to Congress.

Romer v. Evans
Facts. Several municipalities in Colorado had passed legislation that banned discrimination against homosexuals in housing transactions. The Petitioner, Romer, was not leased an apartment by the Respondent, Evans, because of his sexual orientation. Meanwhile, the state passed legislation that denied homosexuals protected class status.
Rule. If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, the legislation is constitutional as long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate state interest.
Issue. By singling out a group and denying them the protected class status has the Colorado amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?
Held. Yes. A law declaring that it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than all others to seek aid from the government is a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals to make them unequal to everyone else and does not further a proper legislative end. Amendment 2 fails the rational basis test because it imposes a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group which is an invalid form of legislation and the breadth is so discontinuous with reasons offered for it that there is no rational relationship to an independent and legitimate state interest or legislative end. A desire to hurt a group cannot be a legitimate government interest.
Patterson: Homosexuals have a much higher burden to get a local law passed in favor of their group because they would first have to get a state amendment repealed which is a much higher level of government action and tougher to accomplish. The Supreme Court used rational basis with a bite because they included discussions about underinclusive/overinclusive which second guess’s conceivably correct state motives, which does not happen under RB review because far-fetched purpose is not a problem, and said purpose was discrimination, which is not legitimate, so “means” analysis is not important. The Supreme Court is now at a point where it does not want to create more suspect classifications, which is general reason it probably refused to apply strict scrutiny. They also had in mind 1st amendment right to petition the government – which is a fundamental right.

United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
Facts. The Appellee, Moreno, was receiving food stamps from the Appellant, the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1971, the Appellant changed the definition of household and Appellee lost all program assistance. The act excluded from participation in food stamp program any household containing individual participation in food stamp program any household containing an individual unrelated to other member of household.
Rule. Discrimination against a politically unpopular group is not a constitutionally permissible government interest. This will fail the rational basis test.
Held. This classification simply does not operate as to rationally prevent the prevention of fraud. The Food Stamp Act has complete sections devoted to such purpose. In order for the law to be sustained, it must rationally further some legitimate government purpose other than those stated in congressional declaration of policy. Legislative history, while small, only indicates that meant to prevent hippie communities from participating in FSA program – which is a desire to harm a politically unpopular group which cannot constitute government interest.
Patterson. Not classical rational basis review because the Court focused both on underinclusive and overinclusive – applied rational basis test with a bite.

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
Facts. The Petitioner, City of Cleburne, denied a special use permit to the Respondent, Cleburne Living Center, for the establishment of a group home for the mentally retarded in the community. The Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit determined that this group is a “quasi-suspect” class and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution).
Rule. Legislation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Held. This is a group that has political clout and has not suffered from prejudice in the past. Court rejects plaintiff’s fears and concerns as not legitimate rationales – underinclusive because it would apply to a significant number of other permits. The Court finds mentally retarded not a suspect class because rationally related standard is more suitable because it affords the government latitude to purse policies designed to assist retarded in realizing full potential, and freely and efficiently engage in acts that burden retarded in incidental manner.
Discussion. The mentally retarded do not qualify as a suspect or quasi-suspect class because the lack of history of discrimination and they are not politically powerless. As a group they have been able to attract the attention of lawmakers on several issues.
Patterson. Not class rational basis review because the Court considers underinclusiveness a big factor where they usually do not.

Reasonable/Rational Relationship
Railway Express Agency, Inc v. New York
Facts. The Appellant, Railway Express Agency, sells advertising space on the side of its trucks. The Appellee, New York, recently passed a law forbidding advertising vehicles when the advertisements were not related to the business of the vehicle.
Rule. Even a law that appears to be too narrowly drawn will survive rational basis review because complete deference is given to the state for its reasoning.
Held. The law was upheld because there is “no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.” Legislatures are allowed to go one step at a time. Legislatures can draw the line somewhere even if it is somewhat arbitrary.
Patterson. Where rational basis test is used, the Supreme Court is going to protect the legislature to extent to give them breathing room to enact legislation that might encompass rationales for law (safety, politics, etc.) law was underinclusive.

New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer
Facts. The Petitioner, New York City Transit Authority (Peti