The equal protection clause limits American governments by ensuring that they do not discriminate against people based on their race, national origin, gender or other status. In the case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting state funding for children of illegal immigrants. The court stated, “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. ” Governments cannot discriminate, even if the people in question are not citizens.
However, the equal protection clause does only assert that, “no state shall…” As a result of this wording, the national government is not as rigorously limited by this clause. Yet, as the Supreme Court noted in the case Bolling v Sharpe, “Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive. ” Therefore, in cases involving the national government, the equal protection clause does apply, just on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
Private organizations are similarly not explicitly limited by the equal protection clause. As the Court stated in Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority, “private conduct abridging individual rights does no violence to the Equal Protection Clause unless…the State…has been found to have become involved in it. ”. In the case Boy Scouts of America v Dale, the Supreme Court permitted the Boy Scouts to exclude James Dale from their organization on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
The Essay on Federal Vs State Courts
The United States is at the forefront of modern democracy. Its unique three branched system allows the government to operate under a quasi-idealistic form of checks and balances. As outlined by the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch of government serves as the interpreter of the law and is “one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world.”1 This complexity is a product of balance ...
This case was decided on the grounds of the First Amendment, as he Court determined that the inclusion of Dale in this organization would affect the organization’s right to freedom of speech and association. The Court stated, “…the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression… ” Private organizations are typically protected under the First Amendment which takes precedence over the equal protection clause.
The separate but equal doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Plessy v Ferguson. Plessy refused to ride in the railroad car specifically set aside for African-Americans, as established by Louisiana law. He argued that his equal protection guarantee had been violated. The Court ruled against Plessy. The Court stated, “requiring railway companies…to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races…are not in conflict with…the Fourteenth Amendment… ” This case was almost unanimously decided.
Only Justice Harlan dissented stating, “The…separation of citizens on the basis of race…is a badge of servitude…inconsistent with…the equality before the law established by the Constitution… ” Harlan’s dissent and many other factors led to the separate but equal doctrine being abolished by the Supreme Court in the case Brown v Board of Education. The Brown family sued the Topeka, Kansas School Board for requiring their daughter to attend a black school an hour away when the nearest white school was infinitely closer to their home.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Browns, killing the separate but equal doctrine in education. Brown was decided on in such a way because, as the Court stated, “…in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place…” They further cited the detrimental psychological effects of segregation on school-age children. Brown was the culmination of several cases involving equal protection in education, one being the case Sweatt v Painter. In all of these previous cases, the Court skirted around the issue of equal protection.
The Essay on Federal Courts 1983 Monroe State
In response to The Civil War Congress enacted The Civil Rights Act of 1871 subsequently known as 42 USC SS 1983. Section 1983, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides a civil remedy for persons who are deprived of constitutionally protected rights by persons acting "under the color of law." The 1961 Supreme Court decision, Monroe v. Pape, establishes federal courts as ...
In Brown, the Court finally took a stance on segregation stating that their, “…disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether…segregation…violates…the Fourteenth Amendment. ” The question does arise, do classifications of different people, based on race, gender, orientation, religion, or disability, necessarily violate the equal protection clause? It is generally considered that such classifications do not violate the equal protection clause, because, for all intents and purposes, the clause is quite idealistic.
As Professor Jasmine Parker states in her article From Slavery to Equal Protection, “…it is evident that the Fourteenth Amendment…continue to be controversial…due to its ambiguity. ” As Professor Yoshino states of rational basis in his article The New Equal Protection, “…most laws create distinctions between groups…the courts simply cannot perform the Sisyphean task of…testing the fairness of every governmental distinction. ” Levels of scrutiny allow the equal protection clause to uphold its main values but in a realistic way without which the equal protection clause would not be functional.
