What Does Equal Protection Under The Law Mean?

What Does Equal Protection Under The Law Mean
Overview – Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

What does it mean equal protection under the law?

The constitutional right to equal protection bars the government from passing laws or taking official actions that treat similarly-situated people or groups of people differently.

What does equal protection under the law mean quizlet?

Equal Protection Clause. enforces the idea that the laws of a state, or of the nation, must treat any given individual in the same way as it would treat other individuals who are in similar conditions and circumstance.

What does equal protection under the law mean brainly?

Equal protection under the law means the state will not discriminate against its citizen and will provide the same rights, privileges and protection. It is included in the 14th amendment of the United States.

What would be an example of equal protection of the laws?

Equal Protection of the Law VI. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW A. Applicability of the Equal Protection Clause The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the American Civil War, in response to severe discrimination practiced against African Americans by many southern states.

As discussed in previous chapters, this amendment first makes clear that all persons born in the Untied States are citizens and receive the privileges and immunities of citizens of the Untied States. It also contains the due process clause, which requires states to provide an appropriate hearing before depriving any person of “life, liberty or property.” The due process clause has also been held to make most of the protections of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment contains the equal protection clause. This mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause has proved to be central in ending and preventing government discrimination based on race and gender.

It has also been held to provide protection from discrimination against other groups of people, such as aliens (non-citizens) and illegitimate children (those born outside of marriage). This chapter, however, will concentrate on discrimination based on race and gender. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, because of the language “no state shall” which precedes the due process and equal protection clauses, the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment have been held to apply against only governmental discrimination.

In most cases, the amendment has no applicability to prevent discrimination by private citizens. Congress has passed a number of statutes designed to prevent private discrimination on the basis of race and gender, but these have not been done under its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

They will be discussed in a later chapter. Although adopted in 1868, the amendment provided very little protection to either women or African Americans until the 1950’s. Statements in some early cases indicate that the Supreme Court felt that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment were directed at protecting only African Americans, and not women, from discrimination.

Even in the first half of the twentieth century, when the equal protection clause was finally applied to women, a very high standard was required to overturn a discriminatory statute, and many laws which discriminated against women were upheld. It was not until the 1970’s that most laws treating men and women differently began to be held unconstitutional.

  • As to racial discrimination, although the equal protection clause clearly applied to African Americans, the Supreme Court held that it did not prohibit laws requiring segregation for whites and blacks.
  • In the 1896 case of Plessy v.
  • Fergusen, the Court ruled that “separate but equal” facilities were allowed.

It was not until after the 1954 case of Brown v Board of Education (outlawing school segregation) that the Court threw out the separate but equal doctrine, recognizing that separate facilities for blacks and whites never had been and never could be truly equal.B.

Classifications Under the Equal Protection Clause Although the equal protection clause applies to any law that treats different classifications of people differently, varying standards are used to test the law, depending on the type of classification being made by the law. Laws that make distinctions based on race are subjected to the harshest test, “strict scrutiny.” Such laws will only be upheld if the state can show that they are necessary to achieve a compelling (extremely important) governmental purpose, which could not be fulfilled through a less discriminatory alternative.

No law subjected to strict scrutiny since World War II has been upheld. On the other hand, most other laws making distinctions between people based on other factors, such as age or occupation, are subjected to the much easier “rational basis test.” A law will be upheld as long as it is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” The Court has shown great deference to state legislatures to determine what is a legitimate state interest and what is a reasonable way to go about serving that interest.

In contrast to strict scrutiny, almost all laws subjected to the rational basis test have been upheld. Originally, laws treating men and women differently were subjected to the minimal scrutiny of the rational basis test. Laws preventing women from working in certain professions, or serving on juries, or working at night were upheld under this standard.

In the 1970’s, unable to agree on whether gender distinctions should be subject to strict scrutiny or to the rational basis test, the Court developed an intermediate standard. It held that classifications based on gender must serve important government objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives.

In recent years the Court has made the test closer to strict scrutiny. In the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the exclusion of women from a state military college. Using strong language, the Court declared: “parties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action” and “must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities or preferences of males and females.” This standard will make it very difficult to justify almost any different treatment based on gender.C.

What Constitutes Discrimination 1. Intent v. Impact Laws that that make distinctions based explicitly on race or gender will be deemed discriminatory. They will almost certainly be held unconstitutional, especially if they burden a racial minority or women.

  • Laws that make distinctions based on race and burden both whites and blacks are also unconstitutional.
  • For example, a state may not prohibit inter-racial marriages, or deny child custody to a couple because they are of different races.
  • Also, as mentioned above, any laws requiring segregation of the races will be held unconstitutional.

Some laws, however, are neutral on their face, but may have a discriminatory impact on women and minorities. For example, a law requiring all police officers to be a certain minimum height would have a discriminatory impact on women, since fewer women than men could meet the requirement.

The Supreme Court has held, however, that discriminatory impact alone does not make a law unconstitutional. In Washington v. Davis, the Court upheld a test required of applicants to the Washington D.C. police force, even though a higher percentage of blacks than whites failed it. In cases of a neutral law that has a discriminatory effect, the Court held that to challenge the law, opponents must show that it was passed specifically for the purpose of discrimination.

Proving that a law was passed for a discriminatory purpose is very difficult. The Court has held that mere awareness that the law will have an unequal impact is not enough to prove intent. The Court upheld a law that gave state preferences in hiring to military veterans, even though it had been clear at the time of its passage that it would not only give an advantage to veterans, but would also have a discriminatory impact on women.

As long as the purpose of the law was to benefit veterans and not to harm women, it would be allowed. Some civil-rights statutes have been interpreted differently than the equal protection clause in this regard. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been held to prohibit employment rules that have a disparate effect on minorities and women, unless the employer can show that they are necessary to the business.

Title VII and other civil rights statutes will be discussed in another chapter.2. Affirmative Action Affirmative Action, or the practice of using racial or gender classifications to benefit minorities and women, has proven to be a contentious issue for the last twenty-five years.

  • The Supreme Court has become less and less tolerant of such programs, and has now held that they must all be subjected to strict scrutiny.
  • In recent years, the Court has struck down federal, state, and local governmental programs that set aside certain percentages of contracts for minority-owned business.

It is unclear whether affirmative action programs in any form will survive. In order to pass the strict scrutiny test, the government must show that there is a compelling state interest for the program. One such claimed interest is to remedy past discrimination.

  • The Court has approved such a reason, but only when the discrimination was practiced by the government itself.
  • In such cases, the government may agree to or may be ordered to hire individuals who had been discriminated against.
  • Further, the government may grant preferences to members of the same minority group, even though they were not themselves victims.

The Court has not, however, allowed affirmative action to remedy past discrimination in an entire field or industry if the particular governmental entity was not itself guilty of discrimination. Another claimed governmental interest to support affirmative action, enhancing diversity, is used by some public colleges and universities.

These institutions maintain that education is improved in an environment where there are different types of people with different experiences, both as students and as faculty. Such institutions maintain that they may use race as one of several factors in admissions and hiring, in order to promote such diversity.

The Court has not yet ruled whether this is an acceptable governmental interest to justify affirmative action. : Equal Protection of the Law

What violates the Equal Protection Clause?

It can perhaps be said that the Equal Protection Clause is at the core of the 14th Amendment. After all, this amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War in attempts to remedy some of injustices that led up to that war, like racial inequality and slavery.

While slavery is specifically dealt with in the 13th Amendment, inequality is dealt with here.Though race and racial discrimination are still at the heart of the Equal Protection Clause, any unjust government classification – the singling out of one group or another – can be a violation of the Constitution.A modern analysis of an Equal Protection claim requires several steps within a larger framework.

First, it must be determined if there has been government action in this instance. A federal, state, or local government may not be able to discriminate, but your neighbor is under no such restraint. Second, there needs to be some classification, some action taken by the government to single out one group from another.However, a government classification does not necessarily mean than a violation of the Equal Protection Clause has occurred.

The group being singled out must be what is known as a “suspect class.” As best defined by a famous footnote in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), a suspect class of people is one that is a “discrete and insular minorit.” These are generally groups that have been historically discriminated against.

If no such group is being singled out, then the Court will likely not consider there to have been a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court may still examine the government action, but it will do so while being as deferential to the legislature as possible.

This low-level standard of review is known as “Rational Basis Review,” and is further explained below.If, however, the government classification does single out a suspect class, the Court will probably give the action what is known as “Strict Scrutiny,” or the Court’s least deferential standard of review.

In this instance, the Court will ask if the government’s purpose for the classification of the suspect class is compelling and whether the action taken is narrowly tailored to that purpose. If the answer to either of these two questions is no, then the classification is an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause.Some government actions easily fit this mold.

Today, if a local government singled out African Americans and forbid them from serving as firemen, this would be almost certainly be considered unconstitutional. Pure racism is not a compelling government purpose, and even if the government would try and suggest a non-racially motivated purpose, it is likely that that such a blanket action is not narrowly tailored to anything compelling.But in other contexts, it can be more difficult to determine if a government classification is constitutional.

Surely, African Americans are a suspect class and the victims of discrimination throughout the history of the United States. But what about women? Or Catholics? Or drug abusers?A blanket law forbidding a group from participating in an entire profession is may neither further a compelling purpose nor be narrowly tailored to that purpose.

  1. But what about laws that only incidentally and statistically affect race? What about single-sex schools? What about affirmative action?The Equal Protection Clause is broad – but its scope is not unlimited.
  2. Below you will find further analysis, as well as examples of how the Court has treated certain classified groups.

A few final introductory points. First, it should be noted that while the Equal Protection Clause, specifically, applies to state and local governments, everything included in that clause also applies to the federal government through the 5th Amendment.

  • Second, in addition to the Rational Basis and Strict Scrutiny tiers of review and analysis, the Court has also applied an Intermediate level (which will be addressed in the ‘Gender’ section below).
  • Third, while these tiers are not technically outcome determinative – a law can fail Rational Basis Review and pass Strict Scrutiny – they often are exactly that.

In the vast majority of cases, once the Court decides that Strict Scrutiny is most appropriate, the law will be struck down. Usually, if the Court applies Rational Basis Review, the law is upheld. Third, this tiered system of review is not unique to Equal Protection.

It is used in Substantive Due Process cases, 1st Amendment cases, and throughout the Constitution. It is a regular tool used by the Court to determine constitutionality. Finally, though terms like Rational Basis Review (and its accompanying “legitimate purpose” and “rational relation”) and Strict Scrutiny (and its accompanying “compelling purpose” and “narrowly tailored”) are often used here as if they themselves are clear standards, they are often not.

The Court may mention these terms, or not, and still apply an analogous framework. Or the Court may use these exact terms, and undertake an unfamiliar analysis. As has been suggested, these tiers of review may be best thought of less as precise tiers, and more as points on a spectrum.

The greater the likelihood for some inappropriate action, the more closely the Court will look to determine if anything inappropriate took place. Indeed, the very notion of tiered review did not really emerge until Carolene Products Co., and the explicit use of Strict Scrutiny did not really take place until Korematsu v.

United States (1944), Therefore, it’s important to keep in mind that, when reading the simplified descriptions of the cases below, the Court’s actual analysis may be much more subtle (or confusing) in the text of the case itself. United States v. Carolene Products Co.

Why equal protection of law is a positive concept?

Exceptions to equality before law – However, this concept is not absolute as it has several exceptions.

Some of these exceptions are laid out in Article 361 of the Indian Constitution, which are the following:

  1. The President or a Governor of any state is not answerable to any Court for the exercise of their duties or powers.
  2. The President or a Governor of a state shall be immune from having any criminal proceedings instituted against them.
  3. No Court shall issue a process for arrest or imprisonment to the President or the Governor of a state during their term.
  4. No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed can be initiated against the President or the Governor of a state during their term without giving a prior notice of 2 months.
  • Additionally, as per Article 361 A, no member of Parliament or State Legislature is obliged to appear before the Court in any case of criminal or civil while the session is ongoing.
  • As per Articles 105 and 194, no member of Parliament or State Legislature is answerable to any court for the speeches, opinions or votes given in the House.
  • Additionally, foreign sovereigns, diplomates, and ambassadors cannot have any civil or criminal proceedings instituted against them. This is something that is accepted on a global level.

The expression ‘equal protection of law’ is a positive one unlike ‘equality before law’. It simply means that all persons in similar circumstances shall be given the same rights and liabilities. It essentially means that equals are to be treated equally and there must be no discrimination amongst them.

  1. The expression ‘equality before law’ is a negative concept as it implies an absence of special privileges that favour any individual. However, the expression ‘equal protection of law’ on the other hand, is a positive concept as it simply means that there should be equality of treatment of individuals in similar circumstances.
  2. The expression ‘equality before law’ stems from the English Common Law and the expression ‘equal protection of law’ stems from the American Constitution.
  3. The concept of ‘equality before law’ lays more emphasis on subjecting all persons to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary law courts. It implies that no person is above the law. However, the concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ implies that all persons who are in similar circumstances must be subjected to a similar application of the law.The emphasis is more on treating the like people alike.

Additionally, this distinction was also elucidated in a few cases. In the case of Sri Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1992), it was held that the expressions ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of law’ do not carry the same meaning though there is a lot in common between them.

  • The word ‘law’ in the first expression was more general in sense and in the second expression it was more specific.
  • It was also observed that ‘equality before the law’ is a dynamic concept having multiple facets.
  • And, one of the facets denotes the absence of any privileged class or person who was above the law and the other denotes the obligation of the state to make the society more equal as envisaged in the Preamble and Part IV of the Indian Constitution.
See also:  How Long Do Law School Decisions Take?

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), it was held that the concept of equal protection of law is simply a part of the concept of equality before law. When the ‘equal protection of law’ is violated, it is difficult to imagine the ‘equality before law’ being maintained in such a situation.

  • The word ‘class’ means a homogenous group of people who are grouped together because they share some characteristics.
  • Though Article 14 does not allow any legislation that provides for a classification, sometimes it is permissible for reasonable objects.
  • The following are the criteria laid down in the cases of Budhan Chaudhary v.

the State of Bihar (1955) and Vajravellu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition (1965) for class legislation to be considered reasonable or rational:

  1. The classification must not be arbitrary. There has to be some rational or substantial reasoning behind the distinction drawn between the people who fall into the class and the people who do not.
  2. There has to be some rational object behind the classification that the legislation seeks to achieve. The classification can be on the basis of various factors like geography, age, or occupation. It is only required for the object of the legislation to match with the classification.

How do you use equal protection in a sentence?

equal protection in a sentence | Sentence examples by Cambridge Dictionary These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.

  1. The argument, as she now spells it out, would invoke the “fundamental right” line of equal protection cases.
  2. From the In short, equal protection of the laws meant that regulations had been worked out by experts.
  3. From the But how flexibly could municipal authorities apply these regulations without violating the equal protection clause? From the If those experts crafted a comprehensive plan, designed to promote public safety and welfare (as affirmed by the experts themselves), the ordinance provided equal protection of the laws.

From the Guided by nuisance analogies and the due process and equal protection tests, courts had shown their willingness to override private rights where public health and safety were concerned. From the These responses to the equal protection and due process tests suggested strategies for expanding the scope of legitimate regulation beyond the primary purposes of the police power.

  1. From the Even though the phrase ‘equality before the law’ was accompanied with ‘ equal protection of the law’, women’s groups were not impressed and asked for stronger words.
  2. From the So while the height limit applied to only one section of a large city, the ordinance did not deny equal protection of the law to all classes of buildings.

From the This would mean that the courts would not have to infer that equality of benefits was included under either equality before the law or equal protection of the law. From the Why should not the landlord be given equal protection by giving him the right to recover the money if he does the repairs himself? From the Hansard archive However, closer examination reveals that the idea of equal protection in law is flawed, for a number of reasons.

  1. From the Hansard archive Yes, but we are willing to look at other forms of governance provided that they offer similar or equal protection to that of trustee law.
  2. From the Hansard archive I want to register my party’s opposition to clause 49, as amended in the other place, and our commitment to equal protection,

From the Hansard archive We should support an amendment to give equal protection because it is right. From the Hansard archive Today, the employee in employment has the equal protection of the law either to be or not to be a member of a trade union. From the Hansard archive Girls of that age are equally, if not more, vulnerable and deserve equal protection,

  1. From the Hansard archive That provides equal protection for witnesses and the rights of the defendant.
  2. From the Hansard archive We have given equal protection to all religions.
  3. From the Hansard archive The important thing is that we give children equal protection with adults and that we outlaw smacking.

From the Hansard archive You do not receive the equal protection of the law unless you can be signalled by the law to be equal. From the Hansard archive A good constitution is one that ensures that our rights are safeguarded by equal protection throughout both islands.

From the Hansard archive All persons living in this land have a right to equal blame or equal protection under the law. From the Hansard archive We also have equal protection under the law. From the Hansard archive It is fantastic to have a policy which is applying equal financial provision and equal protection for places where the danger will be very different.

From the Hansard archive One of those objectives was equal protection from discrimination in the work place. From the Hansard archive After all, the inhabitants of the area do not receive equal protection or benefit from the drainage operations of the river authority.

From the Hansard archive Why do we not give equal protection to the rights of citizens? From the Hansard archive But no protective system, in fact, gives equal protection to all industries. From the Hansard archive Should it be reformed to ensure equal protection under the law for both men and women? From the Hansard archive However, this only minimally attains the objective of ensuring that the shareholders of listed companies will enjoy equal protection in the single market in the event of a takeover.

From Should they not have equal protection too? From the Hansard archive This is just the sort of thing which is going to go on if equal protection is not given to adjacent flats in the same building. From the Hansard archive I have chosen a path, a path of equal protection under the law, a path to pursue justice, encourage and engage, a path to do good.

From Why should not the majority, who have properly carried out the requirements of the legislation, not have equal protection against loss of employment if they abide by the majority decision? From the Hansard archive All part-time workers who work the equivalent of two days or more a week, and many who work only one, enjoy equal protection with full-timers under existing employment protection legislation.

From the Hansard archive We are all entitled to equal protection of the basic rights guaranteed by, for example, the human rights convention whether we are in this country or any other member state. From the Hansard archive For example, it does not offer equal protection to boys and girls, and it does not provide for an offence of inciting somebody else to procure a child.

  • From the Hansard archive Under traditional equal protection analysis, a legislative classification must be sustained if the classification itself is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • The economy was to be a social market one, with planning employed and public and private property enjoying equal protection,

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. This time, this provision intends to provide equal protection of boys, among others. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

They claimed violations of their rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection, as well noncompliance with the full faith and credit clause. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection,

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. In her practice, she fought for issues such as equal protection under the law, equal access to housing, and the right to join labor unions.

  1. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  2. If a right is denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection,
  3. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  4. The 13th amendment abolished slavery, and the 14th amendment granted equal protection to all under the law.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Committing the criminal defendant indefinitely violates equal protection, From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

  • The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause can not sanction.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Fortas contended that the 1824 provision for the legislature choosing the governor belittled the equal protection clause, which did not become operational until 1868.

  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

Under this theory, equal protection jurisprudence has been applied to voting rights. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Men’s rights activists have argued that divorce and custody laws violate men’s individual rights to equal protection,

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. At their core, the goals of movements are the same: social justice, equal protection, and an end to institutional discrimination. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

With this independence, the judiciary can safeguard people’s rights and freedoms which ensure equal protection for all. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. The plaintiffs asked for summary judgment based on due process and equal protection claims.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Thus, the plaintiffs’ equal protection argument fails on the merits. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Thus, spouses may lose the equal protection and anti gender discrimination protections of the secular civil law.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. It would also guarantee equality before the law and equal protection and benefit of law. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

  • Second, the section contains the due process of law as well as the equal protection clauses.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • Thus, it was unnecessary for the statute in question to be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests to be consistent with equal protection,

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Whatever these are, they will be tolerated without distinctions and enjoy equal protection, From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

  1. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary discrimination.
  2. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  3. It demanded a non-racial, democratic system of government, and equal protection for all people before the law.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Within the police force, there is no equal protection under the law. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. The case raises equal protection claims but does not assert a fundamental right to marry.

  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • The discussion of equal protection to all brought to the table the issue of serfdom.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection, From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

During this time he taught courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. This idea has greatly influenced equal protection jurisprudence, and judicial review. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

It then rejected the equal protection challenge under rational basis review. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. Nonetheless, these views can not strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.

  1. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  2. Although unable to agree on an opinion, five members of the court agreed that the layoffs were in violation of the equal protection clause.
  3. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

Yet, the equal protection clause does regulate the use of peremptory challenges in the selection of the petit jury from the venire. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others.

  1. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  2. The four constitutional claims were based on due process, privacy, equal protection, and gender equality.
  3. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  4. All people in a democratic society have the right to education, to employment, to social services, and to equal protection under the law.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. The argued that the law denied them equal protection of the laws and deprived them of their property without due process of law. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

  1. These included violations of equal protection, double jeopardy, and cruel and unusual punishment.
  2. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  3. Furthermore, litigation is constitutionally protected because it is one of the few lawful means by which equal protection of the laws can be enforced.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. This had the effect of denying litigants equal protection of the law. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. It offers equal protection regarding working conditions, safety, remuneration, social security protection, access to training, minimum age of employment, and maternity protection.

  1. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  2. He was concerned about broad interpretations of the due process and equal protection clauses.
  3. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  4. They brought suit in 2005 arguing that denying them marriage licenses violated the liberty and equal protection clauses in the state constitution.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. They believed that this classification violated the equal protection clause as irrational and invidious. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

All enjoy equal protection from the authorities. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. A difference between the initial and final versions of the clause was that the final version spoke not just of equal protection but of the equal protection of the laws.

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. A number of activists seek social justice in the form of equal protection under the law and equal opportunity under the law for groups that have previously been disenfranchised.

  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  • Atz has written a significant body of scholarship on voting rights and election law and has also written and taught on equal protection, civil rights, and legal history.
  • From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

He owes obedience to the laws of the country in which he is domiciled, and, as a consequence, he is entitled to the equal protection of those laws. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to treatment of freedmen following the war.

  1. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.
  2. They also found that since the procedure was limited to people housed in state institutions it did not deny the patient equal protection of the law.
  3. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

Is the court going to send the plaintiff to a land where the law is underdeveloped, uncivilized, or where there is no ” equal protection ” or “due process”? From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause.

See also:  Why Is Trafalgar Law Pop So Expensive?

From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license. To avoid conflict with the equal protection clause, a classification that denies a benefit, causes harm, or imposes a burden must not be based on race. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

This form of abstention allows state courts to correct things like equal protection violations for themselves, thus avoiding the embarrassment of having state policy corrected by the federal courts. From Wikipedia This example is from Wikipedia and may be reused under a CC BY-SA license.

What does equal protection simply require?

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order No.1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution.

  1. Section 1 reads: Section 1.
  2. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
  3. The petitioners assail Executive Order No.1 because it is violative of this constitutional safeguard.
  4. They contend that it does not apply equally to all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the “previous administration” as its sole object makes the PTC an “adventure in partisan hostility.” Thus, in order to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President Arroyo.

The petitioners argue that the search for truth behind the reported cases of graft and corruption must encompass acts committed not only during the administration of former President Arroyo but also during prior administrations where the “same magnitude of controversies and anomalies” were reported to have been committed against the Filipino people.

They assail the classification formulated by the respondents as it does not fall under the recognized exceptions because first, “there is no substantial distinction between the group of officials targeted for investigation by Executive Order No.1 and other groups or persons who abused their public office for personal gain; and second, the selective classification is not germane to the purpose of Executive Order No.1 to end corruption.” In order to attain constitutional permission, the petitioners advocate that the commission should deal with “graft and grafters prior and subsequent to the Arroyo administration with the strong arm of the law with equal force.” Position of respondents According to respondents, while Executive Order No.1 identifies the “previous administration” as the initial subject of the investigation, following Section 17 thereof, the PTC will not confine itself to cases of large scale graft and corruption solely during the said administration.

Assuming arguendo that the commission would confine its proceedings to officials of the previous administration, the petitioners argue that no offense is committed against the equal protection clause for “the segregation of the transactions of public officers during the previous administration as possible subjects of investigation is a valid classification based on substantial distinctions and is germane to the evils which the Executive Order seeks to correct.” To distinguish the Arroyo administration from past administrations, it recited the following: First,E.O.

  1. No.1 was issued in view of widespread reports of large scale graft and corruption in the previous administration which have eroded public confidence in public institutions.
  2. There is, therefore, an urgent call for the determination of the truth regarding certain reports of large scale graft and corruption in the government and to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those involved, if warranted, and to deter others from committing the evil, restore the people’s faith and confidence in the Government and in their public servants.

Second. The segregation of the preceding administration as the object of fact-finding is warranted by the reality that unlike with administrations long gone, the current administration will most likely bear the immediate consequence of the policies of the previous administration.

Third. The classification of the previous administration as a separate class for investigation lies in the reality that the evidence of possible criminal activity, the evidence that could lead to recovery of public monies illegally dissipated, the policy lessons to be learned to ensure that anti-corruption laws are faithfully executed, are more easily established in the regime that immediately precede the current administration.

Fourth. Many administrations subject the transactions of their predecessors to investigations to provide closure to issues that are pivotal to national life or even as a routine measure of due diligence and good housekeeping by a nascent administration like the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), created by the late President Corazon C.

Aquino under Executive Order No.1 to pursue the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of her predecessor former President Ferdinand Marcos and his cronies, and the Saguisag Commission created by former President Joseph Estrada under Administrative Order No, 53, to form an ad-hoc and independent citizens’ committee to investigate all the facts and circumstances surrounding “Philippine Centennial projects” of his predecessor, former President Fidel V.

Ramos. Concept of the Equal Protection Clause One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play.

  • It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.
  • Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause.
  • But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.

“According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” It “requires public bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner.” “The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities.” “In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.” The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature.

Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government including the political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever guise is taken. It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction.

What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.

  1. Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.” For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.
  2. The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed.

It is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry, in the sense that the members of the class should possess the same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial similarity will suffice; and as long as this is achieved, all those covered by the classification are to be treated equally.

The mere fact that an individual belonging to a class differs from the other members, as long as that class is substantially distinguishable from all others, does not justify the non-application of the law to him.” The classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude addition to the number included in the class.

It must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. It must not leave out or “underinclude” those that should otherwise fall into a certain classification. As elucidated in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union and reiterated in a long line of cases, The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state.

It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them.

It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different.

  • It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.
  • The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification.
  • Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars.

A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences, that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class.

This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary. Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No.1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out the truth “concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration” only.

The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at least three portions of the questioned executive order. Specifically, these are: WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating and finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of the offenders and secure justice for all; SECTION 1.

  • Creation of a Commission,
  • There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, hereinafter referred to as the “COMMISSION,” which shall primarily seek and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration ; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor.

SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. – The Commission, which shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption referred to in Section 1, involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman.

  • In this regard, it must be borne in mind that the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past administrations.
  • It is not a class of its own.
  • Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction.

Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution. Though the OSG enumerates several differences between the Arroyo administration and other past administrations, these distinctions are not substantial enough to merit the restriction of the investigation to the “previous administration” only.

The reports of widespread corruption in the Arroyo administration cannot be taken as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations which were also blemished by similar widespread reports of impropriety. They are not inherent in, and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo administration.

As Justice Isagani Cruz put it, “Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification.” The public needs to be enlightened why Executive Order No.1 chooses to limit the scope of the intended investigation to the previous administration only.

The OSG ventures to opine that “to include other past administrations, at this point, may unnecessarily overburden the commission and lead it to lose its effectiveness.” The reason given is specious. It is without doubt irrelevant to the legitimate and noble objective of the PTC to stamp out or “end corruption and the evil it breeds.” The probability that there would be difficulty in unearthing evidence or that the earlier reports involving the earlier administrations were already inquired into is beside the point.

Obviously, deceased presidents and cases which have already prescribed can no longer be the subjects of inquiry by the PTC. Neither is the PTC expected to conduct simultaneous investigations of previous administrations, given the body’s limited time and resources.

The law does not require the impossible” (Lex non cogit ad impossibilia). Given the foregoing physical and legal impossibility, the Court logically recognizes the unfeasibility of investigating almost a century’s worth of graft cases. However, the fact remains that Executive Order No.1 suffers from arbitrary classification.

The PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching for the truth, must not exclude the other past administrations. The PTC must, at least, have the authority to investigate all past administrations. While reasonable prioritization is permitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struck down for being unconstitutional.

  1. In the often quoted language of Yick Wo v.
  2. Hopkins, Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution.

It could be argued that considering that the PTC is an ad hoc body, its scope is limited. The Court, however, is of the considered view that although its focus is restricted, the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the laws should not in any way be circumvented.

  • The Constitution is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights determined and all public authority administered.
  • Laws that do not conform to the Constitution should be stricken down for being unconstitutional.
  • While the thrust of the PTC is specific, that is, for investigation of acts of graft and corruption, Executive Order No.1, to survive, must be read together with the provisions of the Constitution.

To exclude the earlier administrations in the guise of “substantial distinctions” would only confirm the petitioners’ lament that the subject executive order is only an “adventure in partisan hostility.” In the case of US v. Cyprian, it was written: “A rather limited number of such classifications have routinely been held or assumed to be arbitrary; those include: race, national origin, gender, political activity or membership in a political party, union activity or membership in a labor union, or more generally the exercise of first amendment rights.” To reiterate, in order for a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class.

  • Such a classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so constituted as to preclude additions to the number included within a class, but must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions.
  • Furthermore, all who are in situations and circumstances which are relative to the discriminatory legislation and which are indistinguishable from those of the members of the class must be brought under the influence of the law and treated by it in the same way as are the members of the class.” The Court is not unaware that “mere underinclusiveness is not fatal to the validity of a law under the equal protection clause.” “Legislation is not unconstitutional merely because it is not all-embracing and does not include all the evils within its reach.” It has been written that a regulation challenged under the equal protection clause is not devoid of a rational predicate simply because it happens to be incomplete.

In several instances, the underinclusiveness was not considered a valid reason to strike down a law or regulation where the purpose can be attained in future legislations or regulations. These cases refer to the “step by step” process. “With regard to equal protection claims, a legislature does not run the risk of losing the entire remedial scheme simply because it fails, through inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every evil that might conceivably have been attacked.” In Executive Order No.1, however, there is no inadvertence.

  1. That the previous administration was picked out was deliberate and intentional as can be gleaned from the fact that it was underscored at least three times in the assailed executive order.
  2. It must be noted that Executive Order No.1 does not even mention any particular act, event or report to be focused on unlike the investigative commissions created in the past.
See also:  Who Played Tim'S Mother In Law On Ncis?

“The equal protection clause is violated by purposeful and intentional discrimination.” To disprove petitioners’ contention that there is deliberate discrimination, the OSG clarifies that the commission does not only confine itself to cases of large scale graft and corruption committed during the previous administration.

  • The OSG points to Section 17 of Executive Order No.1, which provides: SECTION 17.
  • Special Provision Concerning Mandate,
  • If and when in the judgment of the President there is a need to expand the mandate of the Commission as defined in Section 1 hereof to include the investigation of cases and instances of graft and corruption during the prior administrations, such mandate may be so extended accordingly by way of a supplemental Executive Order.

The Court is not convinced. Although Section 17 allows the President the discretion to expand the scope of investigations of the PTC so as to include the acts of graft and corruption committed in other past administrations, it does not guarantee that they would be covered in the future.

  • Such expanded mandate of the commission will still depend on the whim and caprice of the President.
  • If he would decide not to include them, the section would then be meaningless.
  • This will only fortify the fears of the petitioners that the Executive Order No.1 was “crafted to tailor-fit the prosecution of officials and personalities of the Arroyo administration.” The Court tried to seek guidance from the pronouncement in the case of Virata v.

Sandiganbayan, that the “PCGG Charter (composed of Executive Orders Nos.1, 2 and 14) does not violate the equal protection clause.” The decision, however, was devoid of any discussion on how such conclusory statement was arrived at, the principal issue in said case being only the sufficiency of a cause of action.

What is equal protection of law under Article 14?

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to _A. All persons living within the territory of IndiaB. All Indian citizens living in India C. All persons domiciled in India D. All persons natural as well as artificial Answer Verified Hint: The codification of the fundamental rights are done by the Constitution of India.

  1. It is basic human rights that are provided to all the citizens of India and are defined in Part III of the Constitution of India.
  2. Such rights are mentioned in articles 14 to 18.
  3. Complete answer: One of the human rights which is the right to equality is mentioned in articles 14 to 18 in the constitution of India.

Article 14 is the most essential as it deals with the general principles of equality.Article 14 of the constitution mentions that there should be equality provided before the law and protection provided should be equal on the basis of law. There should no discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, sex etc in the territory of India.

  1. In simple terms, it means that any person who lives within the territory of India should be provided with equal rights before the law.
  2. This article constitutes two parts which are there should equality before the law as well the protection of equal rights.
  3. Even though both the parts seem to be alike but word law stands for philosophical sense in the first statement whereas in the second statement it stands for specific laws practiced in force.

So, the correct answer is Option A.: Note: Article 14 guarantees equality before law. In simple terms, it means that any person who lives within the territory of India should be provided with equal rights before the law. There should no discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, sex, etc in the territory of India.

What is meant when we say everyone is equal before the law ‘?

The term ‘all persons are equal before the law’ means that all the citizens regardless of their socio-economic status have to obey the same law. No person can be discriminated against in the eyes of the law on the grounds of race/colour, religion, caste or gender.

What does the Equal Protection Clause protect against?

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.

Are we all equal under the law?

Human Right # 7 We’re All Equal Before the Law All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Which promises equal protection under the law?

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is exactly like a similar provision in the Fifth Amendment, which only restricts the federal government. It states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Usually, “due process” refers to fair procedures.

  • However, the Supreme Court has also used this part of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain practices outright.
  • For instance, the Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause protects rights that are not specifically listed in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy regarding sexual relations.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court ruled that this right to privacy included a woman’s decision to have an abortion. In addition, the Court used the Due Process Clause to extend the Bill of Rights to the states over time through a practice known as “incorporation.” The Fourteenth Amendment promises that all persons in the United States shall enjoy the “equal protection of the laws.” This means that they cannot be discriminated against without good reason. Racial discrimination has a long and pernicious history in the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court upheld racially segregated public facilities, in a doctrine of “separate but equal.” But in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court reversed this doctrine regarding public schools, ruling that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Even in cases of affirmative action, where the government is seeking to counter the effects of past discrimination in education and employment, the Supreme Court has ruled that racial classifications are “inherently suspect.” Consequently, the Court held in Ricci v.

  1. DeStefano (2009) that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, could not invalidate a promotion exam for firefighters merely because a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities did not pass.
  2. The Equal Protection Clause also applies to illegal immigrants in certain cases.
  3. In Plyler v.
  4. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that prohibited children who were not legal residents to attend free public schools.

The Court held that “the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.” The Fourteenth Amendment allowed states to disenfranchise those convicted of rebellion or other crimes, a clause that was intended to limit the voting rights of former Confederate soldiers.

  • Now, during the nation’s war on drugs, this same provision has resulted in the vote being denied to thousands of African Americans who, as a group, have been disproportionately convicted of drug offenses.
  • Ironically, the very same amendment that was written to ensure equal rights for African Americans now provides a mechanism to make them second-class citizens.

In many states, tens of thousands of minority offenders still cannot vote due to their criminal history. According to Michelle Alexander in her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, “We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” Equality content written by Linda R.

Is equal protection in the Bill of rights?

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Rights of Citizens.

What are the 3 classifications under the Equal Protection Clause?

EXAMPLE: Southernstate passes a law requiring all women to demonstrate their financial self-sufficiency prior to filing for divorce, although men filing for divorce need make no such showing. The gender classification, not fitting into one of the two traditionally suspect classes of race or national origin, would pass muster so long as it is rationally related to some legislative purpose.

Even if the stated legislative purpose was “to discourage women from divorcing their husbands,” under the old version of a “rational basis test” the law would pass, as the legitimacy of the legislative goal itself was not a consideration. – During the era of the “Warren Court” (1953-1968, when Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the U.S.

Supreme Court) we saw significant changes in the fields of individual rights, through cases like Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436 (1966) (see Police Interrogation ) and important Due Process decisions such as Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.479 (1965) (see Due Process of Law ).

Most importantly for our purposes here was the broadening and strengthening of the Equal Protection Clause under the Warren Court. Prior to the Warren Court, the rational basis test was used for classifications not involving race or national origin, and the old version of this test, as noted above, did not look to the legitimacy of the state goal at hand.

Through the Warren Court years, two areas were seen to require a higher standard of scrutiny rather than the rational basis test. First, the concept of “suspect classifications” developed as an area in which strict scrutiny was required. This included the classifications of race and national origin, and while it leaves room for other classifications heretofore subjected merely to the rational basis test, no other classifications have been clearly labeled “suspect” by the Court.

  1. Second, the concept of “fundamental rights” developed as another area requiring application of a higher level of scrutiny.
  2. In the upcoming sections of this chapter we will discuss just which classifications are “suspect” and which rights are “fundamental” such that the highest level of review, strict scrutiny, is applied, and which cases are subjected only to rational basis review.

In addition, the Court has adopted a middle level of review for cases that fall in between the strict and rational basis scrutiny levels, called “intermediate scrutiny.” Let us start by examining the three levels of review applied in Equal Protection and Due Process cases: (1) Rational Basis Review; (2) Intermediate Scrutiny; (3) Strict Scrutiny.

Can the federal government violate equal protection?

Sex, disability, and sexual orientation – Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid sex discrimination to the same extent as other forms of discrimination. On the one hand, Section Two of the amendment specifically discouraged states from interfering with the voting rights of “males”, which made the amendment anathema to many women when it was proposed in 1866.

  • On the other hand, as feminists like Victoria Woodhull pointed out, the word “person” in the Equal Protection Clause was apparently chosen deliberately, instead of a masculine term that could have easily been used instead.
  • In 1971, the U.S.
  • Supreme Court decided Reed v.
  • Reed, extending the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect women from sex discrimination, in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination.

That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Craig v. Boren (1976). The Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full ” suspect classification ” status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups.

In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), the Court refused to make the developmentally disabled a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Thurgood Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court did appear to examine the City of Cleburne’s denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.

The Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals “minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.” The Court rejected as “implausible” the dissent’s argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else but rather would merely prevent “special treatment of homosexuals.” Much as in City of Cleburne, the Romer decision seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test.

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting homosexual sodomy on substantive due process grounds. In Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ‘s opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas’s statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne, and also relied in part on Romer,

Notably, O’Connor’s opinion did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to sexual orientation, While the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.

Other scholars disagree, arguing that “homophobia” is distinct from sexism, in a sociological sense, and so treating it as such would be an unacceptable judicial shortcut. In 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in United States v. Windsor, No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply.

The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalism principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.

What is the purpose of equality law?

The Equality Act is a law which protects you from discrimination. It means that discrimination or unfair treatment on the basis of certain personal characteristics, such as age, is now against the law in almost all cases.

Why is it important to have equal rights?

Understanding equality

  • Equality is about ensuring that every individual has an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents.
  • It is also the belief that no one should have poorer life chances because of the way they were born, where they come from, what they believe, or whether they have a disability.
  • Equality recognises that historically certain groups of people with such as race, disability, sex and sexual orientation have experienced discrimination.

What is the purpose of equal rights?

Equality rights ensure that each person is entitled to equality, human dignity, to reach our full potential and to live our lives freely.

What is meant by the Equal Protection Clause under Article III Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution?

A House member is pushing for a law that shall prohibit and penalize employers who discriminate workers and job seekers. Rep. Narciso D. Santiago III (Party-list, ARC) said his proposal embodied in House Bill 7031 also known as the Unlawful Employment Practice Act of 2009 aims to provide protection to employees and job applicants from discrimination in employment. Santiago explained that employment discrimination occurs whenever an employer or its representatives adversely singles out employees or applicants on the basis of age, race, gender, sex, disability, religion and for other reasons.

Such acts contravenes the equal protection clause of the Constitution which provides that employers cannot discriminate against a person in any aspect of employment, such as: hiring and firing, compensation, assignment or classification of employees, transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall, job advertisements, recruitment, testing, use of company facilities and training according to Santiago.

“The Constitution under Article III Section 1 also provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of the laws,” said Santiago. To be considered as “illegal,” such discrimination must however be in violation of a specific law, otherwise, no protection from discrimination may be had even how unfair or unethical it may seem, according to Santiago.

Santiago cited as an example an employer who may be harder on a specific employee from anyone else for no apparent reason. “While it might be unethical behavior for a boss, it is not discrimination by law. But if he or she is extra hard on the employee for reason that’s protected by law, such as religion, age or sex, then such shall constitute illegal discrimination, especially if an employee is negated of a well deserved promotion” Santiago pointed out.

Under HB 7031, violators shall pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 or face imprisonment of up to 12 years or suffer both, upon the discretion of the court. Other unlawful acts of an employer under the measure are refusal to hire or employ the person or refusal to select the person for a training program leading to employment or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate by reason of race, religion, physical disability, sex, age, and marital status.

  1. Among the exceptions to the prohibited acts shall be an employers’ refusal to hire or discharge an employee with a medical condition or physical or mental disability.
  2. An employer may be free from any legal liability if the employee, because of his or her physical or mental disability, is unable to perform his or her essential duties or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger his or her health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.

An employer or employment agency may also require any medical or psychological examination of an employee or to make any medical or psychological inquiry of an employee based on the provisions of the bill. The measure also defines harassment as those acts which includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition.

What does equal rights mean quizlet?

Equal rights. the right of every person to equal protection under the laws and equal access to society’s opportunities and public facilities. Equal-protection clause.

What does it mean to be equal quizlet?

Terms in this set (4) Equality Definition. Equality is the condition of having the same privileges, status, or rights for all the members of the group ; fairness.