Equal Protection

Where did the Equal Protection Clause come from? What does it say?

The Equal Protection Clause is found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It states that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 as a legal response to how state law should treat newly freed slaves. Equal Protection means that federal and state governments cannot discriminate against individuals based on factors such as their race, sex, nation of origin, or disability status. A government agency, for example, cannot decide against hiring an individual just because they are a woman, or because they are black, or young. The discrimination could be explicit, like a law stating that schools should be separated by racial group, or implicit, like the action of a zoning commission denying a zone change request because of fear of racial integration.

Who is protected under the Equal Protection Clause?

Under the language of the Amendment, anyone has the legal right to claim that they have been discriminated against by the government. This is sometimes called the “class of one” doctrine – an individual might have a unique situation that meets the tests for a ruling in favor of their case under the Equal Protection Clause.

The fact that an individual or group claims to have been treated unfairly does not mean discrimination has occurred. A hiring decision, for example, may have been entirely based on an individual’s qualifications and experience. And even if discrimination occurs, an individual or group must be able to prove that protecting their rights is more important than the end goal of the government policy that they claim violates their right.

How are equal protection claims decided?

When an equal protection claim is made, the government must justify its decision, showing that discrimination did not occur or, if it did, that there was a good enough reason for the actions. The level of justification depends on the kind of discrimination being claimed:

• In cases involving claims of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and (under certain circumstances, religion), courts require that the government prove a compelling interest for the discriminatory policy or action to remain (often called strict scrutiny).
• For claims based on gender and sexual orientation, the government must meet a lower standard, proving an important government interest (intermediate scrutiny).
• In all other cases that do not fall into these categories, the government must prove that this policy or action was a rational way to achieve a valid interest (rational basis).

So, for example, if a group of older airline pilots sued the government for age discrimination because Federal Aviation Administration Rules mandate retirement at age 65, the case would be decided using the rational basis standard. The government would have to show a valid interest (aviation safety) and establish that mandatory retirement was a rational way to maintain safety, such as by citing studies showing that older pilots have slower reaction times and less stamina than younger pilots.  

On the other hand, if the retirement was decided under a strict scrutiny standard, the government would have to show that mandatory retirement was the only way to keep aviation safe – and would likely lose because the pilots could argue that a policy of regular testing of older pilots could accomplish the same goal.

How has the application of the Equal Protection Clause changed over time?

The standards used to interpret the Equal Protection Clause are constantly evolving as different cases are decided and as individuals with different interpretations of the Clause become judges or retire. For example, historically, racial discrimination has been interpreted to mean actions that are harmful to minorities. For example, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision ended the “separate but equal” practice of segregated schools for whites and blacks in many states by citing the Equal Protection Clause.  

Beginning in the 1970s, a series of Court decisions centered on whether race can be used as a criterion for college admission. The most recent case was Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. (A similar case involved the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.) In both cases, a group of Asian Americans argued that policies intended to support admissions of African-American applicants to these universities had the effect of lowering admissions of Asian Americans. The Court held that using race (any race) as an admissions criterion violated the equal protection clause. In this ruling, the Court took a ‘color-blind’ approach to racial equality, arguing that equality under the law meant treatment in the same manner, regardless of historical privilege or not. Current policies that disadvantaged applicants who were not black were just as suspect as past policies that disadvantaged black applicants, even though the intent of the newer policies was to address past discrimination against blacks.

‍