Equal protection
Introduction
i. 14th amendment
1. No state shall deny . . . to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
2. Note that there is no constitutional provision that says the federal government can’t deny equal protection
3. However, case law (Bolling v. Sharpe) says that equal protection applies to the federal government through the due process clause of the 5th amendment
ii. Framework for analysis
1. What is the classification?
a. Is the classification on the face of the law
b. Is the law facially neutral but has a discriminatory effect? If so, is there also a discriminatory purpose?
2. What is the appropriate level of scrutiny
a. Strict
i. End = compelling
ii. Means = necessary = cannot be achieved through a less discriminatory method
iii. Government has the burden of showing the compelling interest and necessary means
iv. Race
v. National origin
vi. Criteria for a suspect classification
1. classification based on immutable characteristics
2. Group in classification unable to protect itself using the political process
3. history of discrimination against the group
4. the classification likely indicates some prejudice
vii. Strict scrutiny can be triggered by a suspect classification or a fundamental right (under due process analyses)
b. Intermediate
i. End = important
ii. Means = substantial relationship
iii. Government has the burden of showing the compelling interest and necessary means
iv. Gender
v. Discrimination against non marital children
c. Rational Basis
i. End = legitimate
ii. Means = rationally related
iii. Party challenging the law has the burden of showing there is no rational basis
iv. Everything else
v. Most e
the law to negate every possible conceivable legitimate purpose
ii. Reasonable Relationship (means)
1. Railway Express Agency v. New York – underinclusiveness tolerated
a. New York passed a law that said you can’t put an advertisement on a car unless that car is used by the business that is advertising. Plaintiff sold the sides of his cars as a side business, and sued under equal protection, stating that this law was not reasonably related to the interest of safety because it didn’t take that many signs off the street
b. Court dismissed the underinclusiveness argument. The legislature has to draw the line somewhere, and while this leaves some signs on cars, it’s ok for the legislature to move one step at a time to try to find the right balance
2. NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer – overinclusiveness tolerated
a. NY transit authority had a policy of not hiring people who used any form of drugs. They applied this to people who were on methadone. People in methadone treatment who didn’t get jobs sued on equal protection, arguing that the law was overinclusive and kept too many people out.
b. Court said that since 30% of methadone users end up back on drugs, it is ok to be overinclusive. Basically, overinclusiveness isn’t fatal to a law as long as it isn’t arbitrary and unreasonable
3. US Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno – arbitrary and unreasonable
Congress amended the food stamp act to prevent a household from participating in food stamps if there were people living in the house who were unrelated. Classification challenged was households with unrelated people living there.
