1 / 31

EQUAL PROTECTION STANDARDS/TESTS

EQUAL PROTECTION STANDARDS/TESTS. CLASS SLIDES 2/10/09. Language of the 14 th Amendment. Equal Protection Clause states: “ all persons within a state's jurisdiction ” are to receive “the equal protection of the laws.”. Clarification of Key Concepts. Equality Equal Equal treatment

tejana
Télécharger la présentation

EQUAL PROTECTION STANDARDS/TESTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. EQUAL PROTECTION STANDARDS/TESTS CLASS SLIDES 2/10/09

  2. Language of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause states: “all persons within a state's jurisdiction” are to receive “the equal protection of the laws.”

  3. Clarification of Key Concepts • Equality • Equal • Equal treatment • Equal protection of the law

  4. Clarification of Key Concepts • Equality is the condition in which two or more things are equal. • Equal is a condition in which two or more things are the same. • Equal treatment is treatment which is the same. • Equal protection of the law is a situation in which the government provides the same legal protections to everyone covered by the law.

  5. Conditions that Evoke Application of the Equal Protection Clause • 14th amendment equal protection clause is applied in situations in which a state or local government treats people differently. • The “equal protection component” of the 5th amendment [See Bolling v. Sharpe] is applied in situations in which the federal government treats people differently.

  6. Definition of “Discrimination” • The dictionary defines discrimination as “making a distinction, distinguishing, or differentiating.” • Given this definition, is it always bad to discriminate?

  7. Criteria for determining the constitutionality of differential treatments • Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th amendment as prohibiting some, but not all, forms of discrimination. • What criteria does the court use for determining when governments are allowed to treat people differently and when they have to treat them the same?

  8. Tests Used in Equal Protection Analysis Supreme Court has developed a set of legal "tests" or "standards" that it applies in equal protection cases [See Table IV-1 on p. 621] • Rational basis test • Intermediate or heightened Scrutiny test • Strict scrutiny (or compelling interest) test What questions does the Court ask when applying this test?

  9. Rational Basis Test • Discriminatory action is unconstitutional if challenging party can establish that it is not • reasonablyrelated to achieving • a legitimategovernment purpose. • to win a case under this standard the plaintiff must show the government action was is arbitrary or unreasonable.

  10. Intermediate or Heightened Scrutiny Test What questions does the Court ask when applying this test?

  11. Intermediate or Heightened Scrutiny Test • Discriminatory action is unconstitutional if challenging party can establish that it is not • substantially related • to an important government objective.

  12. Strict Scrutiny/Compelling Interest Test What questions does the Court ask when applying this test?

  13. Strict Scrutiny/Compelling Interest Test Discriminatory action is unconstitutional unless the government can establish that: • it is the least restrictive means available • to achieve a compelling government interest.

  14. Determining Which Test to Apply What is first step in determining which of the three tests should be applied in the case at hand?

  15. Determining Which Test to Apply • Begin your analysis by determining if there is either: • suspect class or • fundamental right • If the party being discriminated against is a member of a suspect class or is being denied a fundamental right, the courts will apply the strict scrutiny standard.

  16. Determining Which Test to Apply • If the party being discriminated against isn't a member of a suspect classandis not being denied a fundamental right, • the courts will go on to determine if the situation is one of the limited category in which the heightened scrutiny standard applies.  • If it is not, the courts will apply the apply the reasonableness or rational basis test as the default standard.

  17. Identification of a Suspect Class What are the criteria for determining if there is a suspect class involved?

  18. Identification of a Suspect Class Criteria for determining if someone is a member of a suspect class include: • Its members are easily identifiable • it is difficult to change one’s identity • There is a long history of discrimination against them

  19. Identification of a Fundamental Right What are the criteria for determining if there is a fundamental right involved?

  20. Identification of a Fundamental Right Criteria for identifying the existence of a fundamental right include: • One that is very important • One that is explicitly stated in the constitution

  21. Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) Case discussed on pp. 693-694 in text FACTS involved the application of state durational residence requirements for eligibility for welfare benefits. ISSUE: Do state durational residence requirements for eligibility for welfare benefits violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause? YES (5-3) Look first to see what test/standard the Court used and why they used it.

  22. Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) • TEST USED: Strict Scrutiny applied because the state's restrictions denied applicants their fundamental rights of interstate travel. • HOLDING: It is a violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause for a state to impose a durational residency requirement as a condition of eligibility for welfare benefits.

  23. Saenz v. Roe (1999) E&W p. 694 • Involved California law giving different levels of economic benefits to residents on the basis of how long they had lived in the state. • It applied strict scrutiny because it determined that the practice denied the fundamental “right of interstate travel” found in Art IV, Sec. 2 and the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

  24. Saenz v. Roe (1999) REASONING: Right to travel includes: • The right of people from other states to enter or leave the state. • The right to be treated as a welcome visitor when temporarily in another state. • The right of people who become permanent residents to be treated the same as other citizens of the state.

  25. Related Cases Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections (1966) • Struck down poll taxes on the basis the they interfered with fundamental right to vote. Vlandis v. Kline (1973) • Held that it was not unconstitutional for states to charge non-residents more for such things as fishing licenses and college tuition, because they are not paying taxes in the state.

  26. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) • What were the facts in this case? • Which test did the court use? Why?

  27. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) ISSUE: Did the Texas school financing system violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause? NO (5-4) REASONING: • Key to court’s decision was determining which test to apply • All of the justices agreed that the system wouldn't pass the strict scrutiny standard if that were the one to be applied. • Which test did the court use? Why?

  28. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) HOLDING: • It is not a violation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause for a state to use a system for funding its public schools which relies upon local property taxes when unequal evaluations result in unequal educational opportunities. OR • It is not a violation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause for a state to use a system for funding its public schools which results in grossly unbalanced resources being available to students on the basis of where they live.

  29. Maher v. Roe (1977) ISSUE: Does the Conn. welfare regulation violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? NO (6-3) • What test did the court apply? • Why?

  30. Maher v. Roe (1977) HOLDING: It is not a violation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause for a state to refuse to pay the medical expenses for indigent women who wish to have a nontherapeutic abortion while continuing to pay indigent women for all other pregnancy related medical expenses.

  31. Maher v. Roe (1977) Dissenting Justice Brennan, joined by Marshall and Blackmun • The constitution protects the right of abortion from state "interference," not just "absolute bars." • In Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood v. Danforth the Supreme Court struck down limitations on abortions which did not involve criminal sanctions and which did not place an "absolute" bar on abortions. • Cary v. Population Services International (1977) invalidated a ban on the sale of contraceptives to minors even though it didn't forbid their use by minors.

More Related