RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
·
To assure "liberty and
justice for all" two additional constitutional amendments were passed. The Thirteenth
Amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery. The Fourteenth
Amendment, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and forbid states to deny their citizens due
process of law or equal protection of the law, which made certain provisions of
the Bill of
Rights applicable to all states.
·
The promise of equality set out
in the Declaration
of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment is one of American nation's
most ambitious ideals. But what does equality mean? Does it mean that every
American receives the same treatment? Does it mean that everyone has equal
opportunities? Or does it mean something else?
·
Neither the Declaration of
Independence nor the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated prejudice and
discrimination. Prejudice, as an attitude, and discrimination, as a behavior
have continued to cause grave civil rights problems in American society. To the
extent that neither treatment nor opportunities are equal, society must decide
how to respond to the challenge of continuing discrimination in a way that is
both effective and fair. Laws,
regulations, amendments to the Constitution, and court decisions are among
avenues by which the government may respond to discrimination. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth,
and Twenty-Fourth
Amendments were ratified in attempts to make equality a reality. Numerous
decisions of the Supreme Court are regarded as landmarks because of dramatic
changes they called for in the struggle to halt discrimination. And
legislatures at local, state, and national levels have passed numerous laws
prohibiting discrimination. However, U.S history is also marked by long periods
in which laws were not enforced, unconstitutional practices were permitted to
go on, and court rulings had the effect of spreading rather than ending
discrimination. Today, we still face consequences of these unfortunate chapters
in American history.
·
In 1896, for example, the
Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation was permissible thus
separating blacks from whites in schools, restaurants, street and railroad
cars, hospitals and even cemeteries. This doctrine known as "separate but
equal" was in place for nearly 60 years. Because "separate but equal"
lasted so long, many Americans came to think of segregation as appropriate or
even desirable. The Plessy case is one example of the Supreme Court's power to
interpret the Constitution in a manner that resulted in less equal opportunity.
·
The power of the Supreme Court
to promote equal opportunity is illustrated by its 1954 reversal of the Plessy
case in its Brown v.
Board of Education of Topeka decision. Thurgood Marshall, who later
became the first African-American Supreme Court justice, presented compelling
arguments against separating school children by race, asserting that
segregation is inherently unequal. The decision of the Court in Brown case
established that "separate but equal" schools were illegal. The Court
agreed that such school systems were separate but unequal, and that they
therefore deprived the black students of the equal protection of the laws.
·
The Brown decision was followed
by the Civil Rights Movement, which resulted in significant legislation: the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 1968, which prohibited discrimination based on race,
religion, and national origin in employment, housing and use of public accommodations,
such as hotels, motels and transportation facilities. The 1972 Equal Employment
Opportunity Act amended 1964 law and prohibited discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex or national origin in employment of any kind, public or
private, local, state or federal.
What is Discrimination?
·
Discrimination occurs when some
people are treated differently than others because of their membership in a
group; for example, because of race, age, gender, or religion. However not all
types of discrimination are unfair or illegal. Many laws discriminate. In fact,
discrimination is unavoidable result of lawmaking. However, as long as
classifications are reasonable, they usually not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection clause. For example, the law that requires a
person to be of certain age to obtain driver's license discriminates, but is
neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional. However, what if the law required a
person to be left-handed to get a license? Or what if Polish Americans but not
Mexican Americans could get a license?
·
To determine whether a law or
government practice meets equal protection standard, courts use three different
tests, depending upon the type of discrimination involved. In most discrimination cases that come to
court, judges use the rational basis test. Using this test, judges will uphold the law or practice in
question if it has a rational basis. A rational basis exists when there is a
logical relationship between classification and the purpose of the law. For
example, states require their citizens to be a certain age before they can
marry. These laws discriminate against people below a certain age. However,
they are not considered unconstitutional because there is rational relationship
between the classification and the purpose of the law.
·
Certain laws and practices
discriminate based on race, national origin, citizenship status, or some
fundamental right such as freedom of religion. In these cases, the courts use a
test called strict scrutiny. Judges applying strict scrutiny will find a law or practice
unconstitutional unless the state can show it serves a compelling (very important) interest and has no less
intrusive way to satisfy that interest. For example, a Florida town passed a
law against ritual animal sacrifices by the members of the Santeria religion.
The law was challenged and the Supreme Court used the strict scrutiny test.
Although the government had a compelling interest in sanitation and avoiding cruelty
to animals, those interests had to be dealt with through laws applied fairly to
everyone in the community, not simply by targeting the religious practices of
one group. There was a less intrusive way (i.e., not offending one group's
rights) to satisfy that interest, so the Court determined that the ordinance
was unconstitutional.
·
In sex discrimination cases,
the Supreme Court uses the substantial
relationship test. In these cases, there must be
a close connection (not just rational relationship) between the law or practice
and its purpose. For example, a state prohibited beer sales to males aged 18 to
20 but not to females, because more males had been arrested for drunk driving.
Although this law served an important government purpose (reducing drunk
driving), it was ruled unconstitutional. The Court held that there was not a
close connection between the classification and the purpose, because females
were legally free to buy beer and give it to 18- to 20-year old males.
Learn more about equal protection
by visiting the following Web sites:
Introduction to Equal
Protection
Historic
Supreme Court Decisions
