The clause applies to both states (14th= EPC) and the fed gov't (5th DPC by "reverse incorp." of the 14th DPC and EPC).
1. nature of the classifications
2. gov't interest in the challenged; and
3. relationship between the gov'ts interest and the classifications
1. Strict scrutiny
2. Intermediate scrutiny
3. Rational- Basis Test
A law will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to advance compelling gov't interest.
National Origins/Alienage (intent)
Requires justification that is "exceedingly persuasive" and will only be upheld if it is substantially -related to an important government interest.
Parent's Marital Status (legitmacy)
Law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest.
Most everything else
In deciding what level of scrutiny to apply, courts finds whether the group disadvantaged by the challenged reg is:
1. A "discrete and insular" minority;
2. Victim of societal prejudice; and
3. Unable to achieve adequate protection through the ordinary operation of the political process.
1. Under-Inclusive Regulations
2. Over-Inclusive Regulations
Challenged regualtion failed to fully address all manifestations of the problem that it was designed to remedy. It will generally NOT be a sufficient basis for invalidation of the reg under the rational basis test.
R.R. Express Agencey v. People of NY - under-inclusive statute bc it failed to impose the same prohibitions on other people similarly situated
Challenged regulation regulated more people than was arguably necessary to achieve its goal. Again, it will generally NOT be a basis for invalidation under the rational basis test.
NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer- Over inclusive statute bc it imposed burden on others who (at least arguably) were not similarly situated)
1. Race and National Origins
4. Parent's Marital Status (Legtimacy)
7. Sexual Orientation
Std of Rev: Intent (SS) No Intent (RB)
All legal restrictions, which curtail the civil rights of single racial group, are immediately suspect.
1. Must prove that the gov't disc based on race
2. Jury disc. A state actor may not disc against minorities from serving on juries.
laws that facially and intentionally disc based on race or national origin are subject to SS.
1. Ancestry Distinctions: Distinctions between citizens solely bc of their ancestry must be shown to be necessary to accomplishment of some permissible state objective, indep. of racial disc
2. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of racail or nat'l origin restrictions, but racial antagonism never can.
A radically disproptionate impact does not necessarily trigger SS. If the intent is not race disc, then an EP analysis may be satisfied w/ the RBT.
A statute can be neutral on its fact but dic in its application. Thus, it will likely trigger SS.
Laws that classify people based on race but are facially symmetrical- that is, laws that impose equal burdens on persons of different races- are also subject to SS.
Virginia v. Loving- invoking SS anytime race is intentionally used as a basis of classification.
Brown v. Bd- overturning "separate but equal" doctrine for same reasons.
Gov't- sponsored race disc designed to aid the minority at the expense of the majority. SS applies to gov't consideration of race even when it is intentionally designed to benefit, rather than burden racial minorities.
1. Gov't Contracting
2. School Admissions
3. Political Representation (Gerrymandering/Redistricting test)
SS applies to AA programs in gov't contracting
1. Compelling Interest for diverse body
3. Unitary Status:
1. Grutter v. Bollinger- individualized considerations with race and ethnicity are not neccessarily prohibited
2. Gratz & Parents Involved- when individualized as a group and not as an individual, it will not likely sustain constitutional scrutiny: Court perfers an individualized analysis.
After schools reach unitary status, legal obligations of schools change and courts will scrutinize according to rational basis.
School districts can go back to neighborhood school disrictst, to avoid busing, to be closer to faimly etc. so long as it cannot be inferred that the district is intentionally discriminating based on color.
* Dist should attempt to implement race-neutral programs
Std of Review: Intermediate Scrutiny
California v. Webster - upholding Social Sec Act's provision that permitted the exclusion of women's three lower-earning years when compared to similarly situated male wage earner bc it was substantially related to achieving equality of pay among the sexes.
Neutral laws that were not motivated by disc intent do not recieve IS just bc they have a disproportionate impact on person of particular gender. Instead courts apply RBT.
1. Laws/policies that distinguish between conditions that are uniquely associated with one sex do not necessarily trigger IS on that basis alone.
2. Laws/policies that treate sexes differntly b/c of "real differences" might survive IS, but not if lines are drawn based on mere gender stereotype
Std of rev: SS
Exception: Policies excluding aliens from employment inpolicy making positions are subject only to rational basis review (P.O. officers and teachers)
Std of Rev: IS
Laws may calssify on this basis in matters related to the establishment of paternity, but to survive IS they must be substantially-related to that end.
There is a tradition of prejudice against illegitmate children and it is not the child's fault that the parents are not married (children are innocent).
Std of Rev: Rational Basis
Elderly people are not a suspect class, they do not require additional judicial protection
Std of Rev: RB
Sometimes the Ct used a susbtantially more searching than the ordinary RB std.
Factors to help court determine whether to apply RB:
1. Is the group able to actively participate in the political process in that it can influence the legislature?
2. Is the group easily defined? In other words, is it easy to ascertain the boundaries of the group?
3. Is there a legitimate govt interest to protect the disabled group?
Std of Rev: Not yet defined
It is not a legit argument to simply state that the state dislikes homos. The offended party must partiuclarize the disc and have a liegit rationalization.
Romer v. Evans- ruling that an amendment to a states' const was unconst bc it retricted homos, but not non-homos from gaining access to the courts based solely on SO.
1. A st violates the EPC when it denies the right to vote based on wealth or the voter's failure to pay a poll tax.
**But See Crawford- finding that a requirement to present a state ID a polling stateion is not a substantial burden: does not violate the EPC.
2. Might require uniform stds for counting votes during recounts.- Bush v. Gore
1. EPC requires electorial districts to be apportioned based on the priciople of one person, one vote
2. Reapportionment is not a policitical question
3. Political gerrymandering: majority finds that district lines drawn solely for the sake of partisan advantage are justiciable.
Std of Rev: RB
There is not fundamental right to welfare or free public school education
1. No violation of the EPC when state limits the amount of welfare benefits a large family may receive.
2. Court only requires a rational argument. Ex. if you keep giving ppl money, it discourages them from fining or engaging in productive work.
A st does not violate the EPC when it creates a scheme that results in substantially less funding for poorer school districts than for wealthier school districts; or
But See Plyer v. Doe (violating EPC when stated denied a free pub school edu to undocumented children)
Congress' Power to Enforce the Reconstruction Amendments (13th Amendment)
1.Prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
2. Applies to both state and private actions.
3. Empower Congress to to enforce its provisions "by appropriate legislation"
4. Allows Congress to pass laws that it rationally believes are necessary and proper for abolishing the "badges and incidents of slavery."
5. Congress may prohibit some forms of private conduct
1. Both provisions empower Congress to enforce substantive provisions “by appropriate legislation.”
2. Congress not only has power to outlaw state violations of the Amendments and provide for those violations, but also has power to act prophylactically to prevent violations of the amendments.
3. When Congress exercises these powers to regulate state conduct that does not violate the substantive provisions of the Amendments, there must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented/remedied and the means adopted to that end.
4. Because the amendments prohibit only state as opposed to private action, Congress' power under the 14th Amendment to regulate private conduct is highly circumscribed.
See S. Carolina v. Katzenback (determining that § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to abolish literacy tests at polling; also finding that state or state actors must come into play, although the involvement need not be exclusive or direct); but see U.S. v. Morrison (holding that the section does not empower Congress to regulate rape action because the government is not directly or indirectly involved in the rape action and because the law targets private people's actions).
What SS applies to?
1. laws that disc on their face
2. laws that are motivated by disc animus against person based on their R of NO
3. --Racially disproportionate impact does not trigger.
4. Laws that classify on the basis of race but impose equal burden on person of diff races are also subject to SS (law banning interracial marriage)