Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws; the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause imposes the same constraint on the federal government (Bolling v. Sharpe).

Elements / Test

Three tiers of scrutiny:

TierTriggerTestBurden
Rational basisDefault; economic/social legislationRationally related to legitimate government interestChallenger bears burden; near-automatic deference
Intermediate scrutinySex, legitimacySubstantially related to important government interestGovernment bears burden
Strict scrutinyRace, national origin, alienage (suspect); fundamental rightsNecessary/narrowly tailored to compelling interestGovernment bears burden; near-automatic invalidation

Discriminatory intent requirement: Facially neutral laws require proof of both discriminatory impact and discriminatory purpose (Washington v. Davis; Arlington Heights).

Exceptions and Edge Cases

  • Affirmative action: Compelling interest (diversity in education) + narrow tailoring (Grutter); race-neutral alternatives must be considered (Fisher); racial balancing is not compelling; recent SFFA v. Harvard (2023) eliminated race-conscious admissions
  • Sex discrimination: Intermediate scrutiny (Craig v. Boren); gender stereotyping (United States v. Virginia)
  • Alienage: Strict scrutiny generally; “political function” exception for jobs closely tied to self-governance (Foley v. Connelie)
  • Rational basis with bite: Sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans; animus cannot be a legitimate interest); disability (City of Cleburne)
  • Same-sex marriage: Fundamental right under both Equal Protection and Due Process (Obergefell v. Hodges)
  • Voting: One person, one vote; race-based gerrymandering invalid; partisan gerrymandering is a political question

Policy Rationale

Anti-caste principle: prevents government from entrenching disadvantage based on characteristics irrelevant to merit. Tiered scrutiny attempts to calibrate judicial deference — most deferential for ordinary policy, least deferential when history of prejudice + political powerlessness (Carolene Products footnote 4).

Key Cases

CaseRule
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)Racially segregated schools violate Equal Protection
Loving v. Virginia (1967)Anti-miscegenation laws invalid under strict scrutiny
Craig v. Boren (1976)Established intermediate scrutiny for sex classifications
Washington v. Davis (1976)Facially neutral laws require proof of discriminatory purpose
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)Diversity is compelling interest; narrow tailoring required for affirmative action
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)Same-sex couples have fundamental right to marry

Covered In