I. Equal Protection
A. Introduction
1. Constitutional Provisions Concerning Equal Protection
a. 5th Amendment
b. 14th Amendment
2. Framework for Equal Protection Analysis (the Tiered Approach) – For a challenge under the EPC, ask whether the classification by the state or federal government is justified by a sufficient purpose.
a. What is the Classification?
1) Determine whether the classification is discriminatory on the face of the law or whether the law is facially neutral.
2) If the classification is discriminatory on the face the law, then ascertain the level of scrutiny.
3) If the classification is facially neutral, the challenger must show not only a discriminatory impact but also a discriminatory purpose, and then ascertain the level of scrutiny.
4) To show a discriminatory purpose, the challenger must (1) prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, and (2) show that the purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on the challenger (McClesky).
b. What is the Appropriate Level of Scrutiny?
1) Qualification (factors, etc.) that determine scrutiny level:
a) Immutable characteristics – race, national origin, gender, and the marital statue of one’s parents à heightened scrutiny
b) Ability of the group to protect itself.
c) History of discrimination against the group.
c. Does the Government Action Meet the Level of Scrutiny?
1) Rational Basis Test – the court asks whether the action or law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest:
a) Is the end sought by the government legitimate, and
b) are the means employed by the government rationally related to achieving that legitimate end?
2) Intermediate Scrutiny – the court asks whether the action or law is substantially related to an important governmental interest:
a) Is the end sought by the government important, and
b) are the means employed by the government substantially related to achieving that important end?
3) Strict Scrutiny – the court asks whether the action or law is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest:
a) Is the end sought by the government compelling, and
b) are the means employed by the government necessary or narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling end?
d. Protection of Fundamental Rights Under Equal Protection?
B. The Rational Basis Test
1. Introduction
2. Does the Law Have a Legitimate Purpose?
a. What Constitutes a Legitimate Purpose?
1) New Orleans v. Dukes (1976)
2) Romer v. Evans (1996) –
a) In the wake of city ordinances banning discrimination against gays and lesbians, Colorado passed an amendment to the state Constitution divesting gays and lesbians of all legal status in state.
b) Held that the amendment is unconstitutional because it ostensibly fails rational basis review.
c) Perhaps rational review with a “bite” – less deferential to the government about their purposes.
d) Or is the underlying question: “is this legislation unbiased and impartial?”
e) Arguments for the state:
i. Protecting the rights of religious minorities.
ii. Protecting the public morals.
b. Must it be the Actual Purpose or is a Conceivable Purpose Enough?
1) The Court often has said that a law should be upheld if it is possible to conceive any legitimate purpose for the law, even if it was not the government’s actual purpose.
2) US Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz (1980) –
a) In the field of social and economic welfare, a legislative classification complies with equal protection standards if it has a reasonable basis. A classification is not unconstitutional merely because it results in some inequality. Here, because Congress could have eliminated dual benefits for all classes of employees, it was permissible for Congress to draw lines between groups of employees for the purpose o
eaners, track repairmen, or bus drivers simply because they are receiving methadone treatment, the Constitution does no authorize a federal court to interfere in that policy decision.”
c. Case where Laws are Deemed Arbitrary and Unreasonable
1) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973) – food stamp case
a) Held that “a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
2) City of Cleburne, TX. v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.(1985) –
a) Facts: In 1980, Cleburne Living Center, Inc (CLC) submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for the mentally retarded. The city of Cleburne, Texas refused to grant CLC a permit on the basis of a municipal zoning ordinance. CLC then sued the City of Cleburne on the theory that the denial of the permit violated the Equal Protection rights of CLC and their potential residents.
b) Reasoning:
i. Justice Byron White, writing the opinion of the court, invalidated the ordinance as applied to CLC. The Court held that the denial of the permit was based on irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded and hence was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, in its holding, the Court also ruled that mental retardation was not a quasi-suspect or suspect class. Therefore, any legistation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest in order to withstand equal protection review. This is also known as rational basis review and is the lowest level of review given under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court went on to state that the
