The Investment Capital Growth Blog

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons under territorial jurisdiction, regardless of race, colour or nationality, and equal protection of laws is a promise of equal law protection. Consequently, the equality clause has been applied only minimally, except in cases of racial discrimination. If a person believes that the federal or state government has violated that person`s equality, that person can take legal action against that government agency. When it comes to public schools, no state has actually required separate schools for blacks in this era of reconstruction. [29] Some states (e.g., New York) have given local districts the option of establishing separate but equal schools. [30] In contrast, Iowa and Massachusetts had banned segregated schools since the 1850s. [31] It prohibits hanging a black man for a crime for which the white man cannot be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield that it throws at the white man. Is not the time now elapsed when one measure of justice is to be applied to a member of one caste, while another measure is applied to a member of another caste, both castes being equal citizens of the United States, both obliged to obey the same laws to bear the burdens of the same government, and both equally responsible before justice and before God for acts done in the body? The Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War, prohibited states from denying individuals equal protection of the law. That meant that States had to treat all people the same as everyone else. Because inequality can be caused intentionally or unintentionally, the Supreme Court ruled that the equality clause itself does not prohibit government policies that inadvertently lead to racial differences, although under other provisions of the Constitution, Congress may have some authority to deal with unintended divergent effects.

This issue was addressed in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977). In that case, the plaintiff, a real estate developer, sued a suburban Chicago city that had refused to rezone land on which the plaintiff wanted to build low-income, racially integrated housing. On its face, there was no clear evidence of racial discriminatory intent on the part of the Arlington Heights Planning Commission. However, the outcome was racially different, as the refusal would have primarily prevented African Americans and Hispanics from settling. Judge Lewis Powell, writing for the court, said: “Proof of racially discriminatory intent or intent is necessary to prove a breach of the equality clause.” Different effects have only probative value; Without a “strong” model, “the effect is not decisive”. While the equality clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) held that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nevertheless imposes various requirements of equal protection on the federal government through reverse incorporation. Four of the thirteen original states never passed laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and the rest were divided on the issue during Reconstruction. [26] In 1872, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the state`s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the “cardinal principle” of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the equal protection clause. [27] Nearly a hundred years passed before the U.S.

Supreme Court followed the Alabama case (Burns v. State) in Loving v. Virginia. In the Burns case, the Alabama Supreme Court stated:[28] The result in Arlington Heights was similar to Washington v. Davis (1976) and was defended on the grounds that the equal protection clause was not intended to ensure equality of outcome, but to ensure equality of opportunity; If a legislature wants to correct unintended but racially distinct effects, it may be able to do so through other statutes. [68] It is possible for a discriminatory state to conceal its true intent, and one possible solution is to consider the various effects as stronger evidence of discriminatory intent. [69] However, this debate is currently theoretical in nature, as the Supreme Court has not changed its fundamental approach, as described in Arlington Heights. In 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court found that race-based measures to combat the effects of discrimination were as presumed unconstitutional as discrimination based on racial antipathy and belief in racial inferiority. The Court also recognized what it called “social discrimination”, that is, a category of discrimination, however deplorable, for which no one was responsible and for which there was no remedy. Prior to Bakke, efforts towards racial equality were justified on the basis of a general imperative to overcome the lasting effects of historical racial discrimination and subordination. Bakke and subsequent cases have effectively limited this justification for redress to individual cases of proven discrimination.

He threw the remedy under the bus, leaving huge manifestations of racial inequality beyond the reach of the law. The Court`s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a constitutional amendment in Colorado to deny homosexuals “minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or allegations of discrimination.” The court rejected as “implausible” the dissident`s argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of the general protection afforded to all others, but would simply prevent “special treatment of homosexuals.” [78] Similar to the Town of Cleburne case, Romer appeared to apply a much higher degree of control than the basic rational test applied nominally. [79] The next important post-war case was the Civil Rights Case (1883), which challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The law stipulated that everyone should “enjoy fully and equally .. Inns, public transport by land or sea, theatres and other places of public entertainment. In its opinion, the Court explained the doctrine now known as the “doctrine of acts of the State”, according to which the guarantees of the equality clause apply only to acts “sanctioned in any way” by the State. Banning blacks from attending plays or staying in inns is “simply a private injustice.” Justice John Marshall Harlan disagreed, stating, “I cannot resist the conclusion that the content and spirit of recent constitutional amendments have been sacrificed by subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.” Harlan further argued that because (1) “public land and sea transportation” uses public roads and (2) innkeepers engage in “quasi-public employment” and (3) “public entertainment venues” are permitted under state law, excluding blacks from using these services was a state-sanctioned act. At the heart of the debate on the application of the equality clause to race is the question of symmetry. Some people oppose race-sensitive policies designed to combat racial discrimination and inequality.

For example, some people resist efforts by schools and employers to consider race in order to register or hire more minority applicants. Arguing that these measures violate the Fourteenth Amendment, opponents equate these efforts with abhorrent discrimination based on belief in racial inferiority and superiority. All of these are known as “graduated” tests and have drawn widespread criticism, including Justice Thurgood Marshall, who advocated a “range of standards in examining discrimination” rather than separate layers. [64] Justice John Paul Stevens argued only for a level of review, since “there is only one equality clause.” [64] The entire graduated strategy developed by the Court seeks to reconcile the principle of equal protection with the fact that most laws are necessarily discriminatory in one way or another. [65] Good equal protection of the definition of the law boils down to individual equality, which is a general term that refers to an egalitarian society in which all persons are treated equally, regardless of: To get a better overview of the equal protection of the definition of the law, you can post your job posting on the UpCounsel website. UpCounsel`s lawyers are graduates of some of the best law schools in the country and will give you more information about equal protection and what you can do if someone violates your rights. In addition, they will provide additional explanations on the internal functioning of the Constitution. The concept of equality and equal protection comes from the founding of the nation.

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson and other settlers proclaimed an “obvious” truth about human equality. However, such a meaning has never been clearly stated. The situation of slavery was incorporated into the political, social and economic fabric of the United States, which contradicted the idea of equality. Many settlers owned slaves, including Jefferson, and firmly believed that the black race was inferior. A more recent application of the doctrine of equal protection was in Bush v. Gore (2000). This was the controversial recount in Florida after the 2000 presidential election. There, the Supreme Court ruled that the different ballot counting standards in Florida violated the equality clause.