Homework: Read/OL 14.4 for tomorrow; test Monday

FrontPage: Not an FP Question, but can you tell me what the three red countries have in common?

The Constitution and “equality” Are all people treated “equally” in the US?

Do they have to be? Is “equality” mentioned anywhere in the

original text of the Constitution? Where/when does the idea that all Americans

(or people) are equal first appear? When does the idea first make it into the

Constitution? What was the purpose of this amendment?

THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Are all Americans equal?

The Fourteenth Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United

States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws.

The Equal Protection Clause

“nor shall any state…deny to any person …the equal protection of the laws.”

In your own words, what does “equal protection” mean?

Is it always true? When is this not the case in our society?

Why might government have to treat people differently based on their characteristics? What is this called?

When are these kinds of distinctions acceptable? When are they not acceptable?

Homework: Test Monday

FrontPage: Pick up worksheet; read over PPT from yesterday.

Testing Equal Protection

Just like many of the rights we’ve discussed so far, the Supreme Court has developed “tests” to determine when a law or government is unreasonable, and violates the Equal Protection Clause Though there are several

different “tests”, they are easy to think of in a kind of ascending order .

To determine which test might be applied in a case…or , how do the tests work? First, ask:

What is the criteria/basis for the distinction? Does the law/action discrminate based on race,

gender, age, etc, or does it concern a “fundamental right”

This will determine the test Higher level test means that, in the judge’s mind,

the group that is discriminating (college, state government, organization) has MORE of a burden to prove a good reason…

Lower level test means, in the judge’s mind, the group that is discrminating has a LOWER burden to prove a good reason for the distinction

Testing Equal Protection Fundamental Rights – HIGHEST

Any law which restricts a certain group’s ability to exercise their most basic rights, including the right to vote, travel freely, due process or expression , is subject to the HIGHEST SCRUTINY (closest look)

Suspect Classification – 2nd HIGHEST If a law or government action draws a distinction based on

race, religion or national origin, will be given a very close look as well, but the burden of proof is not quite as high as with Fund. Rights

Intermediate Scrutiny – mid level For laws that classify based on gender.

Rational Basis – the lowest level of scrutiny; the government must only prove

that the law has a rational basis (good reason) and that it accomplishes that goal.

Loving vs. VirginiaQuestion:  Did Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?Conclusion:  Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that

distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites

Gratz vs. BollingerQuestion:  Does the Michigan's use of racial

preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:  Yes. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reasoned that

the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was unconstitutional.

Boy Scouts vs. DaleQuestion:  Did the Boy Scouts violate Dale’s rights under the

Equal Protection clause?Conclusion:  No. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that "requiring

the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association."

In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders.

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill…”

US vs. VMIQuestion:  Does Virginia’s refusal to accept a woman into its all-male

academy violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?

Conclusion:  Yes. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-

only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Virginia's creation of VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets.