🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Equal Protection
CONLAW#109
Legal Definition
Classifications involving race or national origin are subject to strict scrutiny. If a law is facially neutral, though, one must demonstrate both discriminatory impact and discriminatory intent.
Plain English Explanation
The Constitution says everyone should be treated equally under the law. This is known as the Equal Protection Clause. However, throughout history, laws have sometimes treated people unfairly based on their race or national origin.
To prevent this, courts apply extra scrutiny to laws that classify people based on race or national origin. This is the highest level of scrutiny, known as "strict scrutiny". The government has to prove there is a really important reason for the racial classification.
Some laws might not mention race directly, but still end up discriminating. For example, a law that requires voters to pay a tax would disproportionately affect minorities. If a law like this is challenged in court, one would have to show: 1) The law actually had a discriminatory effect, even if it didn't mention race explicitly, and 2) There was an intent to discriminate behind the law.
If both of those can be proven, then strict scrutiny would apply, even to a seemingly race-neutral law. The court would then require the government to meet the very high bar of justifying the law. This helps ensure that both explicitly and implicitly discriminatory laws face judicial scrutiny.
The existence of this rule reflects the importance of equality as a core constitutional value. Given the long history of racial discrimination, courts apply this tough test to smoke out both blatant and disguised attempts to discriminate based on race. The rule exists to help fulfill the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.
To prevent this, courts apply extra scrutiny to laws that classify people based on race or national origin. This is the highest level of scrutiny, known as "strict scrutiny". The government has to prove there is a really important reason for the racial classification.
Some laws might not mention race directly, but still end up discriminating. For example, a law that requires voters to pay a tax would disproportionately affect minorities. If a law like this is challenged in court, one would have to show: 1) The law actually had a discriminatory effect, even if it didn't mention race explicitly, and 2) There was an intent to discriminate behind the law.
If both of those can be proven, then strict scrutiny would apply, even to a seemingly race-neutral law. The court would then require the government to meet the very high bar of justifying the law. This helps ensure that both explicitly and implicitly discriminatory laws face judicial scrutiny.
The existence of this rule reflects the importance of equality as a core constitutional value. Given the long history of racial discrimination, courts apply this tough test to smoke out both blatant and disguised attempts to discriminate based on race. The rule exists to help fulfill the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob decides to open a coffee shop in Hypofornia, which has recently passed a law requiring all coffee shop owners to pass a historical knowledge test about Hypofornia. This test is notoriously difficult for those not born in Hypofornia, affecting many, including Sam, who moved there recently. Result: Because the law, while neutral on its face, disproportionately impacts non-natives like Sam, it could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. However, to succeed, Sam must prove that the law's real intent was to discriminate against non-natives and that it indeed has a discriminatory impact.
Hypo 2: Hypofornia passes a law that all voting ballots are to be printed exclusively in English, disregarding the state's large population that speaks other languages as their first language, including Sam's grandparents. Result: This law may not directly target a specific race or national origin, but its effect could disenfranchise non-English speaking citizens, suggesting a need for strict scrutiny to determine if there was discriminatory intent and impact, thereby potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Hypo 3: Bob introduces a bill in Hypofornia requiring all drivers to pass a new safety driving test due to increased road accidents. This law applies to everyone equally, regardless of race or origin; however, it is found that a community of immigrants that reside in Hypofornia are statistically more likely to fail the new safety test, seemingly because of how it conflicts with how they learned to drive in their country of origin. Result: This is an example of a facially neutral law that would survive rational basis review, even though it has a unique, discriminatory impact on a specific group of people. Since the law does not target or intentionally discriminate against this group, the government only needs to show that the law is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest—road safety. Because promoting road safety is a legitimate objective and requiring a driving test is a reasonable way to achieve it, the law is likely to be upheld.
Hypo 2: Hypofornia passes a law that all voting ballots are to be printed exclusively in English, disregarding the state's large population that speaks other languages as their first language, including Sam's grandparents. Result: This law may not directly target a specific race or national origin, but its effect could disenfranchise non-English speaking citizens, suggesting a need for strict scrutiny to determine if there was discriminatory intent and impact, thereby potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Hypo 3: Bob introduces a bill in Hypofornia requiring all drivers to pass a new safety driving test due to increased road accidents. This law applies to everyone equally, regardless of race or origin; however, it is found that a community of immigrants that reside in Hypofornia are statistically more likely to fail the new safety test, seemingly because of how it conflicts with how they learned to drive in their country of origin. Result: This is an example of a facially neutral law that would survive rational basis review, even though it has a unique, discriminatory impact on a specific group of people. Since the law does not target or intentionally discriminate against this group, the government only needs to show that the law is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest—road safety. Because promoting road safety is a legitimate objective and requiring a driving test is a reasonable way to achieve it, the law is likely to be upheld.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
The Equal Protection Clause applies to which actions?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to alienage?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to all other classifications beside fundamental right, suspect, and quasi-suspect?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to everything else?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to fundamental rights or suspect classifications?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to gender and legitimacy?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to laws benefitting women?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to quasi-suspect classification?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to undocumented alien children?
Under the Equal Protection Clause, what level of scrutiny is applied to undocumented aliens?
What is the Equal Protection Clause?
