keywords:
Bookmark and Share



Front Back
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to What??
State Action
_____________________ by the federal government violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment
grossly unreasonable discrimination
__________________is limited to state action. HOWEVER, grossly unreasonable discrimination by the federal government violates __________________
1. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourtheenth Amendment

2. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
What test does the Court apply under the Equal Protection Clause? What about the Due Process Clause?
A). The court uses the same tests under each provision.

1. If a fundamental right or suspect classification is involved, strict scrutiny is used

2. if a Quasi-Suspect Classification is involved intermediate scrutiny is the applicable standard.

3. If the classification does not affect a fundamental right or involve a suspect or quasi-suspect classification, the rational basis standard applies
For strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny to be applied, there must be, what....???
A). intent on the part of the government to discriminate...

strict scrutiny: Must show intent on the part of the government to discriminate against a fundamental right or suspect classification

intermediate scrutiny: Must be intent on the part of the government to discriminate against a quasi-suspect classification.
In order for strict scrutiny to be applied by the court, there must be...
intent on the part of the government to discriminate against a fundamental right or suspect classification
In order for intermediate scrutiny to be applied, there must be, what....???
intent on the part of the government to discriminate against a quasi-suspect classification.
You can show that the government intended to discriminate against a 1. fundamental right, 2. suspect classification, or 3. a quasi-suspect classification by showing that...
1. the Government passed a law that is discriminatory on its face

2. The government applied a facially neutral law in a discriminatory manner

OR

3. That the government had a discriminatory motive behidn the law.

(NOTE: the third way to show intentional discrimination is the most difficult to prove as discminatory effect alone is not enough. Discriminatory motive must be showen by evidence of a history of discrimination.
Intent on the part of the government to discriminate may be shown by...What
1. A law that is discriminatory on its face

2. A discriminatory application of a facially neutral law

OR

3. A Discriminatory Motive behind the law.
Intent on the part of the government to discriminate against a fundamental right may be shown by:
1. A law that discriminates against the fundamental right on its face

2. That a facially neutral law was discriminatorally applied against a fundamental right

3. That there was a discrimantory motive toward the fundamental right behind the law....this must be shown with a discriminatory effect toward the fundamental right AND the legislature's history of discrimination.
"Classifications" are "Suspect" (i.e. will be a suspect classification IF:
they are based on

1. race
2. national origin
AND/OR
3. alienage (the state of being an alien/non-u.s.-citizen...the legal status of alien)

Any Government action that discriminates against these three classes will be analyzed under strict scrutiny.
What is a Suspect Classification?
a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action.
The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification,

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:
  • The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
  • They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
  • They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
  • The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.
The Supreme Court has recognized _________________________ as suspect classes

it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under ______________
1.

i. race
ii. religion
iii. national origin
iv. alienage (status of being an alien)

2. strict scrutiny
The most difficult way to show that the government intentionally discriminated against a suspect class is to show what...
A). That the government had a discriminatory motive behind its action....need to show discriminatory effect AND evidence of history of discrimination
Classifications based on race or national origin are ________ and are therefore judged by a _______________
1. suspect

2. Strict Scrutiny Standard

Hence, the Classification based on race must

1. serve a compelling government/state interest

2. The classification based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest

AND

3. The Classification based on race must be the least restrictive means achieving that interest.
Since Race is a Suspect Class, Classifications based upon race or national origin will be upheld only if:
It can pass strict scrutiny; That is;

1. it serves a compelling government/state interest

2. The classification based on race is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest

AND

3. The Classification based on race is the least restrictive means achieving that interest.
Under Equal Protection does unintentional segregation violate the Constitution?
A). No. Only intentional segregation violates the Constitution. If schoool systems and attendance zones are established in a racially neutral manner, there is no violation. Thus, there is no violation of equal protection of the suspect class of race or national origin if housing patterns result in racial imbalance in schools.
If housing patterns result in racial imbalance (segregation) in schools, is a suspect classification based upon race so as to violate equal protection?
A). No. Only intentional segregation amounts to a suspect classification violating equal protection.
True or False. Government action (whether by federal state or local) that favors racial or ethnic minorities is subject to the same strict scrutiny standard as is government action discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities.
A). True. government action that favors racial or ethnic minorities must pass strict scrutiny and therefore must

1. serve a compelling state interest
2. Be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
AND
3. Be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest

(i.e. affirmative action must pass this but government has a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against racial and/or ethnic minorities
What is an example of "benign" governmental discrimination?
A). Affirmative Action. must still past strict scrutiny

government has compelling interest in remedying past discrimination that is/was persistent and readily identifiable. A race-based plan cannot be used to remedy genjeral pas "societal discrimination"
In order for the government achieve its compelling interest in rectifying past discrimination, the discrimination attempted to be remedied must have been...what?
A). persistent and readily identifiable.

Government cannot institute a race-based plann to remedy general past "societal discrimination."
Even if the government was NOT engaged in past discrimination against race or national origin, may the government still have a compelling interest to engage in affirmative action based upon race or national origin?
A). Yes but the government affirmative action must be narrowly tailored to that compelling government interest.
Do public universities have a compelling interest in having diverse student bodies (i.e. letting people in based upon race)

Do Public Elementary schools haveĀ  compelling interest in having diversity?
1. Yes but each applicant must be considered as an individual. Admissions officers may only consider an applicant's race amount a range of factors

*If race or ethnicity is the defining criterion for admission, the admission policy is not narrowly tailored to achive the compelling interest of ensuring a diverse student body.

2. No diversity is not a sufficiently compelling reason to place students in a particular elemetnary or secondary school based on race.
Public Universities have a compelling interest of ensuring a diverse student body. Hence, if an admissions policy makes race or ethnicity the defining criterion for admission, will this government action based on the suspect class of race pass strict scrutiny?
A). No because the admissions policy is NOT narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of having a diverse student body.
May state legislators consider race or national origin when drawing up new voting districts?
A). Yes but i cannot be the pre-dominant factor.

If a plaintiff can show that a redistring plan was drawn up predominatlely on the basis of racial consideration, the plan will violate Equal Prtection unless the government can show that the plan is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
When must a redistricting plan that considers race or national origin pass pass strict scrutiny and show that the plan is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest?
A). Only if the racial considerations in the redistricting plan can be shown to be the pre-dominant factor in drawing up new voting districts.
Why are federal classifications over aliens NOT subject to strict scrutiny?
A). Because Congress has the plenary/full power over aliens.

Federal classifications over aliesn will be valid and NOT violate equal protection so long as they are not arbitrary and unreasonable.
True or False. Since alienage/status as an alien is a suspect class Federal Classifications over aliens are subject to strict scrutiny...must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
A). False. because Congress has the plenary power over aliens, such classifications based on alienage are NOT subject to strict scrutiny and will be valid so long as they are NOT arbitrary and unreasonable.
Federal Classifications based upon alienage are valid so long as they are...
NOT arbitrary and unreasonable.

They are NOT suspect classifications because of Congress' plenary power over aliens
Are federal classifications based upon alienage/status as an alien "suspect classifications" given that alienage is a suspect class?
A). No. The feds have plenary power over aliens and therefore classifications based on status as an alien made by the feds will be valid so long as they are not arbitrary and unreasonable.
True or False. Generall, state/local laws on alienage are suspect classifications and are subject to strict scrutiny (must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest).
A). True.
Is it constitutional for United States citizenship to be required by the state of Ohio for welfare, civil service jobs or to become a lawyer?
A). No. These are classifications based upon alienage, ones status as an alien and they are therefore suspect classifications and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest and none of those classifications on alienage do not.

exception. If a law discriminates against alien participation in state or local government strict scrutiny will NOT be applied...instead, the rational basis standard is applied.
When may State or Local Governments make classifications based upon alienage/status as an alien and NOT have to pass strict scrutiny?
A). If the state or local law discriminates against alien participation in state/local/self government process. (i.e. says aliens cannot vote, be in jury service, serve elected office, etc.

OR

2. The state or local law limits alien Participation in non-elective government offices involving important public policy. (e.g. police officers, probation officers and primary and secondary school teachers)


Instead, the court will apply rational basis review.

The state or local classification based on alienage must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Why can state and local laws prohibit aliens from becoming police officers or serve on jury duty, vote in elections, etc. when alienage is a suspect class?
Because laws regulating the participation in self-government are an exeption to the general rule that state/local laws on alienage a suspect classifications suspect to strict scrutiny

Instead they are subect to rational basis review.

The laws are rationally related to the legitimate state interest of having aliens not take part in government.
Are undocumented/illegal aliens a suspect class/classification?
No. Thus, state laws regarding them are subject to rational basis review.

(however denail of free public education to undocumetned/illegal alien children is invalid,, and more than a simple rational basis standard was used).
What standard of review is used to evaluate whether a state or local law is discriminatory toward illegal/undocumented aliens?
A). Rational Basis since they are not a suspect class.
Ohio passes a law saying that Resident Aliens cannot become police officers. Does it discriminate toward the suspect class of alienage so as to make it unconstitutional?
A). No because the law is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of having citizens serve in non-elective public offices involving important public policy.

rational basis review and NOT strict scrutiny is used for state and local laws that discriminate against alien participation in government and serving in non-elected government positions serving important public policies.
True or False. The Court will apply strict scrutiny for state and local laws that discriminate against..

1. Alien participation in state or local government

OR

2. aliens serving in non-elected government positions that serve important public policies (i.e. cops and school teachers).
A). False. The Court will apply Rational Basis review and uphold the laws if they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Are state and local laws that discriminate against illegal aliens suspect classifications?
A). No. they'll be upheld if they're rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Classifications based on "legitimacy" (children born to married/unmarried parents) AND/OR gender are...
Quasi-Suspect Classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny

which means that classifications based upon legitimacy and/or gender must be substantially related to an important government/state interest.

the classification must further an important government interest in a way that substantially related to that interest.
Classifications based upon Gender under what standard of judicial review
A). intermediate scrutiny. A classification based upon gender must therefore be substantially related to an important government interest/purpose.
If a state or local government makes a classification based upon gender the government bears the burden of showing ___________________ for the gender discrimination
A). an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the gender discrimination.
laws that make a classification that intentionally discriminates against women generally are ______________

laws that make a classification that benefits women as it is designed to remedy past discrimination against women generally are _______________
1. Invalid

2. Valid
Classifications that intentionally discriminate against men are ___________
1. Generally Invalid

However, some laws that discriminate against men have been found to be substantially related to an important government interest and therefore passing strict scrutiny

such as....statutory rape laws, all male war draft.
Discriminatory laws or regulations that are intended to punish illegitimate children are (e.g. law providing a benefit to legitimate children but not to illegitimetate children) _________
generally invalid because legitimacy is a quasi-suspect classification and therefore such classifications must pass intermediate scrutiny and therefore must be substantially related to an important government interest.
is a law that allows only legitimate children to recover from their father's estate valid?

Is a law that allows illegitimate childrend to recover from their father's estate ONLY IF parenthood is established before the father's death valid
1. No because legitimacy is a quas-suspect classification and this law is not substantially related to an important government interest
If a law is intentionally discriminatory toward illegitimate children will it be upheld?
A). Generally no.

It will be upheld if it is substantially related to an important government interest.
If a law intentionally discriminates against a person's sex/gender will it be upheld.
Only if it is substantially related to an important government interest because such laws discriminating on gender are quasi-suspect classifications and need to to pass intermediate scrutiny.
What are the Quasi-Suspect Classifications?

What are the Suspect Classifications?

What standard of review must all other classifications besides quasi-suspect and suspect classifications pass
A). Classifications based on Gender or legitimacy of children

evaluated under Strict Scrutiny

B). Classifications based on Race, national origin, (religion?) and Alienage/status as an alien (not illegal aliens)

Must pass Strict Scrutiny in that the regulations must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.

C. all other classifications are evaluted under rational basis review and therefore must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

(i.e. age, disability and wealth classifications are examples of classifications that are NOT suspect or quasi-suspect).
x of y cards Next >|