Equal Protection of the Law

Fourteenth AmendmentJessica Stickel Ashley Pollack Shannan Petchul

Equal Protection

• Definition: the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts, and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness.

• Found in the Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment

• The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868

• It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States

• It forbade states to deny their citizens due process of law or equal protection of the law

• It made certain provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to all states

University of CA v. Bakke 1978• Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had

twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis and was rejected

• The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program.

• Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted.

• Bakke said that he was not admitted solely on the basis of race.

Decision• 5 votes for Bakke, 4 votes against

There was no single majority opinion.

• Four of the justices said that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Another justice, Powell, said that racial quotas violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• The remaining four justices said that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutional. Powell joined that opinion as well saying that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria.

Consequences

• The Court minimized white opposition to the goal of equality.

• The Court also extended gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

• The rule became that as long as race was one of many criteria, it was allowed in college admissions.

University of CA v. Bakke Summary

• White man was denied college admission although his grades were better than the minorities admitted

• 5-4 Bakke won- the quota system violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

• Justice Powell also joined the dissenting opinion- “race is permissible as one of several criteria”

• Minimized white opposition while achieved gains for minorities

Grutter v. Bollinger 2003

• Barbara Grutter (white) applied for the University of Michigan Law School but was rejected

• The Law School said it uses race as a factor because it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body”.

Decision

• 5 votes for Bollinger, 4 against• Court said that the Equal Protection

Clause does not prohibit the use of race in admissions because the Law School conducts a highly personalized interview of each student, so the decision is not based solely on race

Consequences

• Upheld the precedent from University of CA v. Bakke

• Held that race was allowable as a factor in admissions as long as it was not the primary factor

Grutter v. Bollinger Summary

• Grutter was denied admission at a Law School - she claimed her rejection was because she was white

• 5-4 Bollinger won- the decision was not based solely on race, so it was allowable

• Upheld University of CA v. Bakke precedent

Korematsu v. US 1944

• Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas critical to national defense during World War II - placed them in internment camps

• Korematsu stayed in San Leandro, California, which violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army

Decision

• 6 votes for United States, 3 votes against• Need to protect against espionage

outweighed Korematsu’s personal rights• Compulsory exclusion is justified in

circumstances of “emergency and peril”

Consequences

• Expanded the war powers of the president and Congress

• Placed national security above personal freedoms

Korematsu v. US Summary

• During WWII, Japanese were excluded from certain areas for national security

• Korematsu refused to move from California

• 6-3 US won- national security outweighs personal rights

• Expanded war powers

Loving v. Virginia 1967

• Black woman (Mildred Jeter) and white man (Richard Loving) were married in DC and then moved back to Virginia

• Couple was charged with violating the state's anti-miscegenation statute (banned interracial marriages)

• Question: Does the state law violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Decision

• 9 votes for Loving, 0 votes against• Court found that the Virginia law had no

purpose other than blatant racial discrimination

• The law violated the Due Process Clause and failed the “rational purpose” test of the 14th Amendment

Consequences

• Freedom to marry resides with the individual and not the state

• Personal freedoms are protected from state interference

Loving v. Virginia Summary

• Black woman and white man married in DC and then moved back to Virginia

• Convicted of violating the Virginia anti-miscegenation law

• 9-0 Loving won- Virginia law was purely racial discrimination that served no purpose

• Personal freedoms are protected from state interference

Lochner v. NY 1905

• There was a New York law forbidding bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day

• Lochner violated it by allowing an employee to work longer, so he was fined $50

Decision

• 5 votes for Lochner, 4 against• Court said that the act was

unconstitutional because it interfered with the freedom of contract

• Court also said that it violated the 14th Amendment's right to liberty of the employer and employee - the state could not interfere and set labor laws

Consequences

• Established a precedent for state interference with labor laws

• Put power in the hands of employers

Lochner's Bakery

Lochner v. NY Summary

• New York law forbidding bakers from working over 60 hours/week or 10 hours/day

• Lochner violated it • 5-4 Lochner won- the law interfered with

the employer and employee’s rights to liberty

• The state cannot interfere with contracts• Precedent for striking down labor laws

Slaughterhouse Cases 1873

• Louisiana legislature passed a law granting a monopoly to the Crescent City Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse Company to slaughter animals around New Orleans

• Group of local butchers sued Louisiana arguing that the law violated the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment

Decision

• Louisiana won• Court said the law did not violate the 14th

Amendment• Court said that the privileges and

immunities clause only forbids the states from withholding the privileges and immunities belonging to American citizenship, not state citizenship

Consequences

• Dissenting opinion of Justice Field argued that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental rights and liberties of all citizens against state interference

• Dissenting opinion became the lasting precedent, the opinion of the case is more of a historical snapshot

Slaughterhouse Cases Summary

• Monopoly granted in Louisiana to one slaughterhouse company

• Local butchers sued Louisiana because they thought the monopoly violated the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause

• Louisiana won

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish 1937

• Washington State had passed a minimum wage law for women and children

• Elsie Parrish sued the hotel claiming they had not paid her the minimum wages

• West Coast Hotel claimed the law was unconstitutional

Decision

• 5 votes for Parrish, 4 votes against• Court said that the 14th Amendment does

not prohibit the states' ability to "reasonably" regulate the certain activities for the public good

• Constitutional because it reasonably regulated contracts

Consequences

• Radical and controversial at the time• Paved the way for laws helping workers• Expanded the constitutionality of laws- can

be “reasonably” regulatory

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish Summary

• Parrish sued the hotel claiming she had not received the minimum wages mandated by law

• 5-4 Parrish won- law is constitutional because it “reasonably” regulates for the public good

• Established a precedent for government supporting the workers

Works Cited

• http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protection+of+the+law

• http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Equal.htm

• http://www.oyez.org/cases• http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitali

sm/landmark_westcoast.html• http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebe

llum/landmark_slaughterhouse.html