This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Equal Protection Outline

Law Outlines > Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines

This is an extract of our Equal Protection document, which we sell as part of our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines collection written by the top tier of Harvard Law School students. Review Now

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

I: Equal Protection: Minimum Basis Review
? Question: Classification justified by a permissible purpose. Tiers of Scrutiny

1. Rational basis: Rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Challenger has burden of proving. a. Very deferential. b. Classifications: Sex-orientation [?], Age, Disability, Wealth.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny: Substantial relationship to an important government purpose. Government burden of proof. a. Classifications: Gender, illegitimacy, sex-orientation [?]

3. Strict Scrutiny: narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government purpose a. Classifications: Race, National Origin. b. "Strict in theory, fatal in fact"
[also used for fundamental rights]
What determines why heighted scrutiny?
3 Traditional Criteria:

1. Immutable characteristic

2. Historical Discrimination

3. Powerless to protect self via political process. New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer (1978)
? Not hiring an employee who uses methadone. Safety & efficiency
? Fn. 9: Policy is overinclusive, but still has rational relationship.
? Stevens Majority: Methadone users not a politically unpopular group
? White Dissents: Might need protection from judiciary o Fn. 15: Moreno, Cleburne

II: Equal Protection: Race Dred Scott (1857)
? Birth of 14A in response to this.
? Why didn't Taney stop on the jurisdiction question?
? Taney on Judicial Role: o Not to evaluate merits of this opinions o Decision up to law-making political process. o Bifurcation of Justice and Constitutional Interpretation
? Dicta: Missouri compromise was beyond
? Second federal invalidation of a federal law after Dred Scott.
? PROF: What's wrong with Dred Scott o Should have stopped before Diversity claim?
o Abdication of Morality and Justice and Personal responsibility o Scape-goating Taney for being a product of his time?

Frederick Douglas Speech
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
? Applying effectively rational basis to race
? Statute: Separate but equal train cars; but allows nurses of the "other race" o Facially neutral
? Separate but equal reasonable for race
? Harlan Dissent: o Expressive function of law; can shape social values and inferiority o But still slightly racist: White as dominant and continue to be... Chinaman...
o Two theories:
? Anti-classification: Colorblind. Harm to race is when any classification is made. Draw no lines on the basis of race
? No one believes this in its entirety; can't send a white cop undercover into a black gang. So, what kind of racial divisions acceptable?
? anti-subordination: No superior, dominant race or ruling class. [AA permissible]
o Rights:
? Civil: File a law suit, make a contract
? Political: Right ot vote, run for office
? Social: Peer-to-peer; marriage, etc. o Harlan says ride train is a civil right; Majority says it's a social right.
? Both agree Social Rights not have to be equal Originalism:
? Three flavors o Framer's original intent [Meese]
o Ratifier's original understanding o Original public meaning/Original Expected Application
? More Modern.
? less subjective, more about common usage.
? Scalia the most important justice of last generation. o Flexibility in statehouses, not courthouses. o "Living constitution" flexibility is undesirable.
? Role of Precedent?
o There are sancrosanct opinions. Scalia, "I'm an originalist, not a nut"
? Originalism adopted by the Left: o Balkin's "Living Originalism" - "majestic generalities" not "specificities." o Founders not always specific, so delegating to future generations.
? (See 10/16 lecture for more on Originalism & Liberals)
? Takeaway: Originalism can be broad or narrow DC v. Heller (2008)
? Flowering of originalism. Fought exclusively on originalist terms.
? Prohibition on handguns in DC unconstitutional.
? Scalia: Identify operative clause. Some handgun regulations permissible - certain times, places, people. o PROF: Is Court's opinion actually a living constitutionalism one?


Stevens dissent: Why is that allowed but not this?

Path to Brown
? Cumming (1899): Black taxpayers challenging money for their white high school. Black HS closed. o Harlan: Wrong kind of remedy requested. o [What is the right remedy for EP? Leveling up or down?]
o Here, plaintiff asked for leveling down (Close the white HS), should've asked to reopen the black school. o Rare to level down (But see swimming pool case)
? McCabe v. Atchinson (1914): Sleeper cars on train. Must provide same kinds of facilities if going to be separate. o Emphasis on equal accommodations.
? Gaines v. Canada (1938): Can't have all white law school without a black law school. Paying for a different state's tuition not sufficient.
? Sweatt v. Painter (1950): Law school required to integrate. o Schools in Texas NOT equal. o Intangibles: Faculty, prestige, alumni, standing in community o Can't match reputation and faculty - inherently unequal. o [Plaintiff chosen carefully: Already married, so no suggestion that he's looking for a white wife...]
? McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1950): Public School of education can't restrict Doctorate student (separate cafeteria table, sit outside the classroom) Common Law Constitutionalism
? David Strauss: How legal change occurs
? Court articulates a rule and attempts to apply it, but rule is not satisfactory. Evolves over time, as judges slowly hollow out the rule.
? PROF: o Too anemic a conception of what justices are doing. o More aware of what they are doing. o Plessy (rational basis) -> By Buchanan, no longer doing reasonableness. o Not unconscious, but decisive decisions Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
? Residential segregation order impermissible.
? Viewed as a break in tradition even immediately after the case. o Property rights issue not explain everything. o How is this not social rights, not civil rights, at play?
o Trying to distinguish Plessy Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
? Common law constitutionalism process of interpretation?
o Separate but equal been tried and failed o PROF: This would be precedent-centric. Not true here!
? Warren: not an originalist, originalism is inconclusive.
? Times have changed since 1896. Public education has exploded. o Modern focus: "Today," "This day and age"


Holding: Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. o But: not address de facto vs. de jure segregation Brown limited to public education, but Civil Rights Movement expands. o Later per curiam decisions not really justified on Brown. More Anti-classification than anti-subordination. o "Inferiority never to be undone" o Social science evidence. o But some classification as well: "on the basis of race" FN. 11: Famous footnote, citing psych studies - were not rigorous science...
Unanimous: but in exchange, Brown II...
o PROF: A terrible mistake. Separated right from remedy. o Would South have been less upset if there had been dissents?
o [Roe v. Wade was 7-2; would 9-0 have made a difference?]

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
?????companion to Brown
? 5A, not 14A: 14A not apply to DC.
? DP and EP not interchangeable?
o "Equal protection component of the 5A"?
o See Tribe, "Double helix of liberty and equality" [Windsor?]
? PROF: How could originalists reconcile all this?
Brown II (1955): All Deliberate Speed
? PROF: A cop-out decision. Brown I a hero, II a villain
? Invitation of Southern Manifesto?
? More anti-classification than anti-subordination. o See Parents Involved Cooper v. Aaron (1958) - supra Loving v. Virginia (1967): Miscegenation laws not ok.
? CJ Warren for a unanimous court
? (3 years earlier: McLaughlin v. Florida - co-habitation OK)
? Strict scrutiny
? Note: VA law explicit about white and black
? Compared to Brown o EP
? Brown: can't turn back clock to 1896
? Loving: Stronger interpretation on 14A. 14A to eliminate all inequality. o DP here also
? PROF: Complicate traditional account o Traditional Account: Supreme Court wise to wait in 1955; opposition dwindled since Brown o BUT: Approval of interracial marriage in 1967 very low. Very controversial decision. Aftermath of Brown: In 6 years between Green and Miliken, court exits the field of policing racial discrimination. 4 new Nixon appointees.
? Green (1968): First time weighing in since Cooper

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law: Fourteenth Amendment, Separation of Powers Outlines.