Equal Protection and Levels of Scrutiny: every key term you need (+ practice quiz)
25 flashcard terms for Constitutional Law Topic 7, written to match the course framework. Study them here, then drill them as interactive flashcards, or test yourself with the 15-question quiz — free, no account needed.
The Fourteenth Amendment command that no state deny any person the equal protection of the laws. It governs classifications drawn by government and is applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment.
Reverse incorporation
The doctrine treating the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee as containing an equal protection component, so federal classifications are judged by the same standards applied to states.
Rational basis review
The default standard sustaining a classification if it is rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government interest. The challenger bears the burden and the fit may be quite loose.
Rational basis with bite
A more searching version of deferential review applied where the classification appears driven by animus or bare dislike of a group, producing invalidation despite the nominal standard.
Romer v. Evans
Struck a state constitutional amendment barring protections for gay and lesbian residents, finding the breadth of the disability and the absence of any legitimate justification revealed animus.
United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno
Invalidated a food stamp restriction aimed at households with unrelated members, holding that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate interest.
Intermediate scrutiny
The standard for quasi-suspect classifications, requiring that the classification be substantially related to an important government interest, with the burden on the government.
Strict scrutiny
The standard for suspect classifications and infringements of fundamental rights, requiring that the measure be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Few laws survive it.
Suspect classification
A trait such as race, national origin, or alienage that triggers strict scrutiny, identified by a history of discrimination, immutability, political powerlessness, and irrelevance to legitimate policy.
Discriminatory purpose requirement
A facially neutral law violates equal protection only if enacted or maintained at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects on an identifiable group.
Washington v. Davis
Held that disproportionate racial impact of a police qualifying examination did not by itself establish a constitutional violation absent proof of discriminatory purpose.
Arlington Heights factors
The circumstantial evidence courts weigh to infer discriminatory intent, including disparate impact, historical background, the sequence of events, procedural or substantive departures, and legislative history.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Found an equal protection violation where a facially neutral laundry permit ordinance was administered so systematically against Chinese operators that only discriminatory purpose explained the pattern.
Korematsu v. United States
Sustained the wartime exclusion of Japanese Americans under nominal strict scrutiny. The Court has since stated the decision was gravely wrong the day it was decided.
Loving v. Virginia
Struck a ban on interracial marriage, rejecting the argument that equal application to both races saved the law and identifying white supremacy as its only purpose.
Brown v. Board of Education
Held that state-mandated racial segregation in public schools denies equal educational opportunity, rejecting the separate but equal formula in public education.
De jure and de facto segregation
Only segregation traceable to intentional government action supports a constitutional remedy; racial imbalance arising from private choices and housing patterns does not.
Affirmative action in higher education
Race-conscious admissions were long reviewed under strict scrutiny with diversity accepted as compelling, but the 2023 decisions held that the programs before the Court failed narrow tailoring and lacked measurable endpoints.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Upheld an individualized law school admissions policy that considered race as one factor among many in pursuit of educational diversity while forbidding quotas or separate tracks.
Craig v. Boren
Established intermediate scrutiny for sex classifications, striking a statute setting different drinking ages for men and women based on weak statistical generalizations.
United States v. Virginia
Required exceedingly persuasive justification for excluding women from a state military college and rejected the proposed separate women's program as unequal in prestige and resources.
Alienage classifications
State laws burdening lawfully present noncitizens generally face strict scrutiny, subject to a political function exception for positions central to self-government such as police officers and teachers.
Illegitimacy classifications
Distinctions based on nonmarital birth receive intermediate scrutiny, so laws burdening such children require a substantial relation to an important interest rather than mere convenience.
Fundamental rights under equal protection
Unequal distribution of certain rights such as voting, interstate travel, and access to courts triggers heightened review even though the underlying right may not be expressly enumerated.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
Held that education is not a fundamental right and wealth is not a suspect classification, so disparities from local property tax financing were reviewed and upheld under rational basis.