SUPREME COURT CASES: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (WOMEN, AFRICANAMERICANS, AND SUSPECT CLASSES)
Directions: Discuss the constitutionality of each issue presented, according to the Constitutional
Tests provided.
Rational Basis Test: Discrimination is constitutional if it has a reasonable relationship to a proper
purpose of government
Suspect Class: A class that has historically suffered unequal treatment on the basis of race or
national origin
Strict Scrutiny: Courts subject such discrimination against a suspect class to strict scrutiny. There
must be some compelling purpose for the discrimination to be constitutional
Quasi-Suspect Class (Sex): Scrutiny for sex discrimination is not quite as high for race, in
recognition of some biological differences between the sexes. To justify such discrimination, states
must show that the law bears some relation to important governmental objectives. Law cannot be
based on old/archaic nations about women.
Fundamental Rights Test: Courts subject laws which deny fundamental rights to strict scrutiny.
Fundamental rights are those which are explicitly in the Constitution. Such rights also include those
which are implicitly in the Constitution. (ie. Privacy)
ROLES: Each member of the group should play one of the following roles (at some point) in the
discussions:
1) Chief Justice – reads each issue to the group and calls on every member of the group to
speak. No one speaks twice before everyone speaks once! (Rhenquist rule)
2) Constitutional Test Advocate – will make certain that each student justifies their vote by
using the Constitution or a Constitutional precedent or test (not just personal feelings).
3) Secretary – will record each vote of the group and the reasons.
4) Reporter – will check the Supreme Court vote on line (after student’s discussion) and will
let the group know. (You need the numeric vote as well as a summary of the reasons). All
students should take notes on this.
Before beginning your discussions, summarize of the parts of the Constitution, established
Constitutional tests, or federal law that is applicable to the case. Your vote in your conference group
should be based previous knowledge and on the principles set forth in the following amendments.
These are the Civil Liberties that will be discussed:
Fourth Amendment, etc – Privacy/Search and Seizure
Fourteenth Amendment - Equal Protection under the Law ; Due Process
Case One: Muller v. Oregon (1908)
Facts of the Case:
In 1903, Oregon passed a law that said that women could work no more than 10 hours a day in
factories and laundries. A woman at Muller's laundry was required to work more than 10 hours.
Muller was convicted of violating the law. His appeal eventually was heard to the U.S. Supreme
Court. In his brief, lawyer Louis Brandeis tried to show the Court that Oregon's law was a valid
use of its power to protect the health of women.
Question
Is a state law setting a maximum workday for women constitutional? Does the Constitution permit
states to pass laws to protect the health of workers.
Your Answer
SCOTUS Answer
Case Two: Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) (refer to U.C. Regents v. Bakke; 1978)
Facts of the Case
In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science
and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. In 1997, Patrick Hamacher
applied to the University with an adjusted GPA of 3.0, and an ACT score of 28. Both were
denied admission and attended other schools. The University admits that it used race as a
factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving
diversity among its student body."
In addition, the University had a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are
members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and
Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus. In October
1997, a class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the
plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendment... and for racial discrimination."
Question
Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Your Answer
SCOTUS Answer
Case Three: Vernonia School District v. Acton (1994)
Facts of the Case
An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School
District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases
the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon
adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its
student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football
program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.
Question
Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of
the Fourth Amendment?
Your Answer
SCOTUS Answer
Case Four: Lawrence v. Texas (2002) (refer to Bowers v. Hardwick; 1986)
Facts of the Case
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered
John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a
private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate
sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that
the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Question
Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual
Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior
by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?
Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital
interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Your Answer
SCOTUS Answer