Constitutional Standards of Review under the Equal

Protection Clause

Constitutional Standards of Review under the Equal

Protection Clause

• Supreme Court has set up classifications or categories for issues it reviews

• Fundamental freedoms, race, ethnicity, gender, age, wealth etc.

• Supreme Court has set up classifications or categories for issues it reviews

• Fundamental freedoms, race, ethnicity, gender, age, wealth etc.

• Standards set and used to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated

• Not everyone, every issue is treated exactly the same

• Standards set and used to determine whether the Equal Protection Clause has been violated

• Not everyone, every issue is treated exactly the same

I. Strict Scrutiny• Heightened standard of review• Used to determine

constitutionality of an issue• Used when fundamental freedoms

are involved• Religion• Assembly• Press• Privacy, etc.

I. Strict Scrutiny• Heightened standard of review• Used to determine

constitutionality of an issue• Used when fundamental freedoms

are involved• Religion• Assembly• Press• Privacy, etc.

• Includes suspect classification such as race, national origin• Reviewing an issue that

restricts these rights requires the most rigid scrutiny• Ex: Brown v Board of

Education• Race based distinctions

• Includes suspect classification such as race, national origin• Reviewing an issue that

restricts these rights requires the most rigid scrutiny• Ex: Brown v Board of

Education• Race based distinctions

• Statute is presumed to be unconstitutional unless:• The government can prove the

law is necessary to accomplish a permissible goal

• It is accomplished by the least restrictive means

• Ex: Korematsu v U.S.• Goal-safety during war, internment

camps least restrictive means

• Statute is presumed to be unconstitutional unless:• The government can prove the

law is necessary to accomplish a permissible goal

• It is accomplished by the least restrictive means

• Ex: Korematsu v U.S.• Goal-safety during war, internment

camps least restrictive means

• Court ruled national risks posed by Japanese Americans were sufficient enough to justify internment-1944

• Brown v Board of Education - segregation not necessary to accomplish state goal of educating its students

• Court ruled national risks posed by Japanese Americans were sufficient enough to justify internment-1944

• Brown v Board of Education - segregation not necessary to accomplish state goal of educating its students

II. Intermediate standard of review Used for gender issues• Does classifying gender serve an

important governmental objective?• It it substantially related to those

ends?• Actually related, not theoretical

• Reasonable basis test

II. Intermediate standard of review Used for gender issues• Does classifying gender serve an

important governmental objective?• It it substantially related to those

ends?• Actually related, not theoretical

• Reasonable basis test

• Craig v Boren• Keep drunk drivers off the road-goal• Allowing 18-21 year old women to

drink alcohol is not substantially related to that goal - OK

• US v VA Military Institute• All male admission policy• Unconstitutional-no important

governmental objective

• Pregnant women and job restraints

• Craig v Boren• Keep drunk drivers off the road-goal• Allowing 18-21 year old women to

drink alcohol is not substantially related to that goal - OK

• US v VA Military Institute• All male admission policy• Unconstitutional-no important

governmental objective

• Pregnant women and job restraints

III. Minimum Rationality Standard• Applies to most laws• Atkins v Virginia - death penalty

does not apply to mentally impaired

• Minimum standard applied for basis of discrimination.

• Government must allege a rational foundation for any distinctions they make

III. Minimum Rationality Standard• Applies to most laws• Atkins v Virginia - death penalty

does not apply to mentally impaired

• Minimum standard applied for basis of discrimination.

• Government must allege a rational foundation for any distinctions they make

• EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created as a regulatory body - Force of the law• One of its regulations: Affirmative

Action• Created program which provided special

opportunities• Law says cannot discriminate based on

gender, race• AA says we are going to make decisions

based on gender and race

• EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created as a regulatory body - Force of the law• One of its regulations: Affirmative

Action• Created program which provided special

opportunities• Law says cannot discriminate based on

gender, race• AA says we are going to make decisions

based on gender and race

• Affirmative Action• Born of the civil rights movement • Minorities and women to be given

special consideration • Employment• Education• Contracting decisions

• Purpose: to equalize the scales between Caucasians and minority groups

• Affirmative Action• Born of the civil rights movement • Minorities and women to be given

special consideration • Employment• Education• Contracting decisions

• Purpose: to equalize the scales between Caucasians and minority groups

• Does Affirmative Action make things better or worse?

• University of CA v Bakke 1978

• Gratz v. Bollinger 2002

• Grutter v. Bollinger 2003

• Does Affirmative Action make things better or worse?

• University of CA v Bakke 1978

• Gratz v. Bollinger 2002

• Grutter v. Bollinger 2003