Equal Protection Cases

• The study notes focus on equal protection cases.

Facially Neutral Policies

• Policies that appear neutral can still be discriminatory in effect.
• These policies can violate equal protection if they have a disproportionate impact on a protected class and are motivated by discriminatory intent.

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Authority

• Illustrates how facially neutral policies can be challenged under equal protection.
• To prove discriminatory intent, plaintiffs must show that the decision was motivated by a desire to discriminate against a protected class.

McCleskey v. Kemp

• Examined the use of statistical evidence to prove racial discrimination in capital sentencing.
• The Court held that statistical evidence of racial disparities in sentencing is not sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent in an individual's case.

Racial Profiling and Equal Protection

• Racial profiling involves law enforcement targeting individuals based on their race or ethnicity.
• It raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause because it treats individuals differently based on their race.

Congressional Power Under Section 5

• Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment.
• This power includes the authority to enact legislation to prevent and remedy violations of equal protection.

City of Boerne v. Flores

• Addresses the scope of Congress's power under Section 5.
• The Court held that Congress's power is limited to enacting laws that are congruent and proportional to the constitutional violation being addressed.

Affirmative Action: Government Contracting

• Affirmative action policies seek to remedy past discrimination by giving preferences to members of historically disadvantaged groups.
• In government contracting, these policies have been challenged under the Equal Protection Clause.

City of Richmond v. Croson

• Set strict standards for affirmative action programs in state and local contracting.
• The Court held that such programs must be narrowly tailored to remedy identified past discrimination and cannot be based on generalized assertions of societal discrimination.

Adarand Construction v. Pena

• Extended the strict scrutiny standard to federal affirmative action programs.
• The Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local government, must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Affirmative Action: Education

• Affirmative action policies in education have been implemented to promote diversity in colleges and universities.
• These policies have been challenged under the Equal Protection Clause.

Grutter v. Bollinger

• Upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program.
• The Court held that a narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body is permissible.

Gratz v. Bollinger

• Struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program.
• The Court held that the program, which automatically awarded points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, was not narrowly tailored and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

SFFA v. Harvard

• Challenged Harvard University's affirmative action program, alleging that it discriminated against Asian American applicants.
• The Court held that Harvard's program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was narrowly tailored and considered race as only one factor among many in admissions decisions.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

• Addressed the use of race in assigning students to public schools.
• The Court held that school districts cannot use race as a determining factor in assigning students to schools, as it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Racial Classifications in Prison

• Racial classifications in prisons are subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Such classifications must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, such as prison security.

Johnson v. California

• Applied strict scrutiny to a California prison policy of racially segregating inmates.
• The Court held that the policy was subject to strict scrutiny and remanded the case for further consideration.

Sex Discrimination

• Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• To be upheld, such classifications must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to achieving that interest.

Bradwell v. Illinois

• Upheld a state law prohibiting women from practicing law.
• The Court's reasoning reflected the prevailing societal norms of the time, which viewed women as primarily suited for domestic roles.

Reed v. Reed

• Invalidated a state law that gave preference to men over women in the appointment of estate administrators.
• The Court held that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based on an arbitrary gender classification.

Frontiero v. Richardson

• Struck down a federal law that provided different benefits to male and female members of the military.
• The Court held that the law discriminated against women and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Craig v. Boren

• Established the intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications.
• The Court struck down an Oklahoma law that prohibited the sale of beer to men under the age of 21 but allowed women over the age of 18 to purchase it.

Personnel Administrator v. Feeney

• Upheld a state law that gave preference to veterans in civil service employment.
• The Court held that the law did not discriminate against women, even though it had a disproportionate impact on them, because it was based on veteran status, not gender.

US v. Virginia

• Struck down the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy.
• The Court held that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was not based on an exceedingly persuasive justification.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

• Discrimination based on sexual orientation has been challenged under the Equal Protection Clause.
• The level of scrutiny applied to such classifications has been a subject of debate.

Romer v. Evans

• Struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited the enactment of laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
• The Court held that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by animus toward homosexuals.

Discrimination Against the Mentally Handicapped

• Discrimination against the mentally handicapped has been challenged under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Such classifications are typically subject to rational basis review.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

• Struck down a city ordinance that denied a special use permit for a group home for the mentally retarded.
• The Court held that the ordinance was based on irrational prejudice and violated the Equal Protection Clause.