Lesson 1: Equal Protection: RaceTopic: What standards of review are used by the Supreme Court in equal protection cases? Background: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." At first blush, these few words do not appear to present difficulties in interpretation. But from this language in the Constitution, a body of law has grown so complex in nature that it has been the subject of vigorous scholarly debate for more than a century. There is one thing that legal scholars are in agreement about. Looking at the Constitution, there are few clues beyond the Fourteenth Amendment itself as to the true meaning of equal protection. Equal protection is therefore defined less by the actual language of the document and more by years of judicial interpretation and reinterpretation. But even with the considerable latitude that courts have to construe the Constitution, there has been a search for boundaries in the application of its principles. This search has led the Supreme Court to create a specific framework for analysis of equal protection issues. In terms of analysis, equal protection was at first limited to laws that classified individuals based on race. The framers of the amendment, fresh from the battle scars of the Civil War and the fight to eradicate slavery, acted specifically with the black race in mind. This is only of historical significance now, as equal protection guarantees have been extended to all laws that classify persons in some manner. Given the broad reach of the amendment today, it is not surprising that the Court has seen fit to invoke a number of standards for equal protection review. For our purposes, this lesson examines only the two-tier analysis consisting of the rational relationship test and the strict scrutiny test. The division is based on the existence or non-existence of a suspect classification. This view of equal protection is greatly simplified, but necessarily so because even this much material will be difficult for the inexperienced student to comprehend. It is only a brief overview demonstrating the difference between the low level of scrutiny courts exercise when applying the rational relationship test to economic and social legislation, and the intensified scrutiny given to cases involving the suspect classifications of race and ethnicity. In point of fact, other tests have been suggested including variations of the two-tier analysis. And the degree at judicial intervention can have serious implications for the balance of power as well. But this goes well beyond the introductory material presented here. In this lesson, students are only asked to study a glossary of terms and then to examine a series of cases illustrating how these terms have been used. This inquiry, although a limited one, is important for a complete understanding of the unit. Objectives: After studying a chart and a glossary of terms about equal protection review, and completing an activity based on that information, students will be able to:
Materials: Handout 1A "Equal Protection Review: Glossary of Terms" Handout 1B "Supreme Court Standards of Review" Time Required: 1 class period Procedures: Distribute Handout 1A "Equal Protection Review: Glossary of Terms." Have students carefully read and study the diagram and the glossary of terms including the examples provided. Then have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 1B "Supreme Court Standards of Review." Have students complete the activity based on the information they have learned in Handout 1A. Then have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Performance Assessment: Divide the class into groups of three. Present the class with two hypotheticals involving a recent school incident that raises equal protection issues. One hypothetical should include a suspect classification and one should not. One student will argue the case that does not include a suspect classification and apply the rational relationship test. The second student will argue the case that includes a suspect classification and apply the strict scrutiny test. The third student will listen to both arguments and determine if the tests were correctly applied. Further Enrichment: Based on multiple intelligence theory. Spatial: Select one of the cases cited in Handout 1B. Create yourself an easy-to-use diagram using the answers given on the handout. Intrapersonal: Think of an incident in which you believe your equal protection rights were violated because of your age or gender. Assume a legal action has been brought on your behalf. Express your feelings about having the rational relationship test applied instead of the strict scrutiny test. Linguistic: Think of a test other than the rational relationship or strict scrutiny test that could be used in age and gender cases. Write a letter to the editor discussing the categories that you believe should be suspect.
Handout 1A: EQUAL PROTECTION: RACE Equal Protection Review How does the court determine whether policies violate equal protection? GLOSSARY Or TERMS Suspect Classification A category or class of people requiring special protection by the judicial branch of government. The Supreme Court will give special protection where a policy treats people differently because of "race" or "ethnicity." Those are the only two categories recognized as "suspect" by the Supreme Court. Strict Scrutiny Test This is the test used in cases that involve a "suspect classification." The Supreme Court will first determine if the state legislature enacted the policy because of a "compelling or overriding state interest." The purpose of the policy must be "extremely" important and not merely reasonable. If the answer is yes, US- statute is "permissible." The Supreme Court will then determine it the policy is the "only way" to attain that compelling state interest and therefore a legal policy. If there is any other way at attaining the compelling state interest without harming the "suspect" class, the policy will be struck down. Example: During a bitter conflict with Japan in World War II, the state of California set a policy to place American citizens of Japanese ancestry in detention centers. California maintains that the emergency war powers allow them to do whatever is necessary to protect the safety of the American people. Since Japanese-Americans may have loyalties to Japan there is a danger that they might commit acts of espionage and sabotage against the United States if not placed in confinement. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). (We will consider this case in detail in another lesson.) The Supreme Court will apply the strict scrutiny test. The purpose of the policy to protect the safety of the American people is a compelling state interest and the policy is therefore permissible. The policy of placing Japanese-Americans in detention centers is the only way of attaining the compelling state interest and is therefore necessary. The policy will be upheld. Reasonableness or Rational Relationship Test This is the test used in cases that do not involve a "suspect classification." The Supreme Court will first determine if the policy has a "reasonable purpose" or "rational basis" for being enacted by the legislature. If the answer is yes, the policy is deemed to be "legitimate." The Supreme Court will then determine if the policy is "reasonably related" to attaining the identified legitimate end. If the answer is yes, the Supreme Court will go no further and the policy will be upheld. Example: The state of Montana passes a law which allows them to charge more money to out-of-state residents for a hunting license. The law in challenge on equal protection grounds because it treats in-state and out-of-state residents differently even though they are engaged in the same activity. Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission 436 US 371 (1978). The Supreme Court will apply the rational relationship test. The purpose of the policy, to protect big game animals in the state is reasonable. The law is therefore legitimate. The policy of charging an additional fee to out-of-state residents for a hunting license is rationally related to attaining the legitimate end. Adapted & compiled from Black's Law Dictionary by Henry Campbell Black et al 6th edition (1990); Constitutional Law by Nowak and Rotunda, Hornbook Series West Publishing Co., (1995); and Constitutional Law by Gerald Gunther 12th edition (1991). Let's try this easy to use diagram  Suspect Categories
Handout 1B: EQUAL PROTECTION: RACE Supreme Court Standards of Review After reading each case select the proper test and apply it to the case. Case I: The state of Alabama enacts laws to require racial segregation in prisons. The state argues that the segregation of prisoners helps to maintain security and discipline in the prison population. The law is challenged as a violation of equal protection. Lee v. Washington 390 US 333 (1969).
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Case II: In order to maintain a physically fit police departments the State of Massachusetts requires all officers to retire at age 50. It is challenged on the grounds that it violates the equal protection rights of police officers over age 50 who are in good physical condition and able to perform their duties an well as officers under the age of 50. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia 427 US 307 (1976)
(Hint: According to the glossary of terms, is age a suspect classification?)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Case III: Palmore and Sidoti, both white, are divorced and the parents of a 3 year old daughter. Palmore, the mother, has entered a second marriage to a black man. As a result of the interracial marriage, Palmore lost custody of the child to the father in the lower courts. The court reasoned that it was in the "best interests of the child" to be removed from the social stigma of living with a step-father of another race. Palmore v. Sidoti 466 US 429 (1984).
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________
Case IV: The state of Colorado enacted a provision to the state constitution known as Amendment 2. The amendment prevented the state or any of its cities from adopting laws designed to protect the rights of homosexual men and women. The law was challenged an the grounds that it violates the equal protection of homosexuals. Romer v. Evans 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996).
(Hint: According to the glossary of terms, are homosexuals a suspect classification?)
_____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ |