Constitutional-Literacy-17

=**Section 17: Equal Protection**=

"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." This part of the 14th amendment is the Equal Protection Clause.

Everyone has to be treated equally or the same in terms of the laws. There are times, however, that the government doesn't have to treat everyone equally. For example, 18 year olds can vote, 17 year olds cannot. Some people are allowed to practice medicine, others are not. Obviously, this clause should not be interpreted to mean 100% absolute equal treatment at all times. In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled in Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Wisconsin on this matter. The life insurance company argued that it was being taxed higher in Wisconsin than other states. The Supreme Court ruled against the company and made the ruling that only arbitrary acts of unequal treatment were against the 14th amendment. Laws can reflect real differences among groups. Is there a real difference between men and women or are the differences arbitrary? Obviously there are real differences. The same applies to age as well as income. The Supreme Court has allowed its definition of arbitrary to be just that - arbitrary.


 * Comprehension Question: What was the major ruling in Northwestern Mutual Life v. Wisconsin?**


 * Discussion Question: Should the government be required to guarantee equality in every situation? (Currently, the government allows only doctors to prescribe medicine; should plumbers and engineers be given the equal right to prescribe medicine? Only those 16 and older can drive. Should 14 year olds or 10 year olds have the equal right to drive? People with felonies often can't own a gun. Should felons be allowed to own a gun?) If not, what should be the general standard for when equality is required and when making distinctions is permissible?**

There are three approaches to identifying equal protection: (1) strict scrutiny, (2) mid-level scrutiny, and (3) minimal scrutiny. Nothing in the history or text of this clause sets up these three standards. There is a basis on giving races unequal treatment (more benefits for minorities since this was the basis for the 14th amendment, one of the Civil War Amendments). Beyond race, it's all made up by the Supreme Court's own opinions - an arbitrary approach to justice.

Stict scrutiny was applied in cases of "suspect classification" such as racial discrimination. The Supreme Court had a shameful history on slavery with the Dred Scott decision in 1857, which allowed slaves to be taken to free territory. The court had ruled that Scott wasn't a citizen. The 14th amendment was put onto the Constitution specifically to make former slaves citizens of the U.S. The Supreme Court still allowed racism even after though as long as all were given equal protection of the laws. In Plessy v. Ferguson 1896, the court ruled that separation on race didn't necessarily imply inferiority in 1896 - the "separate but equal" ruling. This ruling lasted more than 50 years. In Korematsu v. United States 1944, the court had to look into the government putting Japanese-Americans into relocation camps. Korematsu was arrested for staying in his home. German and Italian ancestry wasn't cause for putting citizens in those same types of camps. The combination of race and nationality played a factor here. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment camps. It was never officially reversed, but is certainly seen as a blot on the reputation of the Supreme Court. In 1954, the Supreme Court desegregated the schools in Brown v. Board of Education saying "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." There were violent reactions in the 1960s and 1970s, but no doubt that this ruling was right.


 * Comprehension Question: Why is the Dred Scott decision one of the most shameful moments in Supreme Court history?**


 * Comprehension Question: What was the key ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson?**


 * Comprehension Question: What was the ruling in Korematsu v. United States?**


 * Comprehension Question: What was the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education?**

What about affirmative action? Affirmative action policies require preferential treatment in education and hiring for minorities who suffered past discrimination. Does this violate the 14th amendment for whites? In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Alan Bakke was denied entry into medical school in place of disadvantaged groups even though he was more qualified. The school argued that strict scrutiny should only be used for minorities. The Supreme Court ruled that all racial classifications were subject to the same standards and so race cannot be the sole criteria for hiring or admissions (it can be part of a criteria though). Affirmative action could be used as part of a larger criteria. In 2007, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District was about a Seattle school district that allowed students to apply to any school in the district (big cities have numerous schools in a district). Race was a tiebreaker to keep diversity since often times there were more applicants for a school than there was room. The non-profit group sued for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that this type of affirmative action was unconstitutional. "Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that at the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class. Allowing racial balancing as a compelling end in itself would effectively assure that race will always be relevant in American life, and that the ultimate goal of eliminating entirely from governmental decision making such irrelevant factors of a human being’s race will never be achieved." Affirmative action wasn't totally eliminated, but it was curtailed by the 2007 ruling. The United Nations has a treaty requiring signing nations to abide by affirmative action. As of now, we're not a part of that treaty. Progressives want to be (Progressives like global government).


 * Discussion Question: Justice Clarence Thomas, an African-American, is an opponent of affirmative action policies. He graduated from Yale Law School - one of the top schools in the country - yet faced job discrimination after graduation because employers assumed he had been admitted to Yale not because of merit, but because of affirmative action. Do such policies really help minorities in the long run? Will they (affirmative action policies) help rid the nation of racism?**

There have been cases that use minimal scrutiny. In Vance v. Bradley 1979 the court had to look into age discrimination. The Foreign Service Act of 1946 required mandatory retirement at age 60. This is a federal agency, but the Supreme Court ruled the 14th amendment applied not just to the states, but also the federal government through the 5th amendment's due process clause. All other federal employees weren't required this same mandatory retirement. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not age discrimination siding with the government, which argued that they needed young vigorous officers in the Foreign Service for the traveling involved. That argument was good enough for the Supreme Court.

There has also been intermediate scrutiny, which isn't as strict, but more vigorous than minimal. Gender discrimination was being looked at in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan 1982. Hogan, a male, wanted to go to the university for an advanced nursing degree, but was denied. The Supreme Court agreed saying women traditionally didn't lack ability to get into nursing school so affirmative action wasn't a good argument for the university. Justice O'Connor even said allowing it would perpetuate the stereotype that nursing was solely for women. It was a 5-4 decision. In United States v. Virginia Military Institute 1996 the court had to rule on VMI being a male-only college. The Supreme Court ruled against VMI.


 * Discussion Question: How would you have ruled on the matters of age discrimination with mandatory retirement and gender discrimination cases discussed above?**

Equal Protection is important, but like other rulings the Supreme Court has made its own rules

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page