Equal Protection of the Law
Fourteenth Amendment
Jessica Stickel
Ashley Pollack
Shannan Petchul
Equal Protection
• Definition: the right of all persons to
have the same access to the law and
courts, and to be treated equally by the
law and courts, both in procedures and
in the substance of the law. It applies to
equal treatment as an element of
fundamental fairness.
• Found in the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
• The Fourteenth Amendment was
ratified in 1868
• It granted citizenship to all persons
born or naturalized in the United States
• It forbade states to deny their citizens
due process of law or equal protection
of the law
• It made certain provisions of the Bill of
Rights applicable to all states
University of CA v. Bakke 1978
• Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had
twice applied for admission to the University of
California Medical School at Davis and was
rejected
• The school reserved sixteen places in each
entering class of one hundred for "qualified"
minorities, as part of the university's affirmative
action program.
• Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test
scores) exceeded those of any of the minority
students admitted.
• Bakke said that he was not admitted solely on the
basis of race.
Decision
• 5 votes for Bakke, 4 votes against
There was no single majority opinion.
• Four of the justices said that any racial quota
system supported by government violated the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Another justice, Powell, said
that racial quotas violated the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The remaining four justices said that the use of
race as a criterion in admissions decisions in
higher education was constitutional. Powell
joined that opinion as well saying that the use of
race was permissible as one of several
admission criteria.
Consequences
• The Court minimized white opposition to
the goal of equality.
• The Court also extended gains for racial
minorities through affirmative action.
• The rule became that as long as race was
one of many criteria, it was allowed in
college admissions.
University of CA v. Bakke
Summary
• White man was denied college admission
although his grades were better than the
minorities admitted
• 5-4 Bakke won- the quota system violated the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment
• Justice Powell also joined the dissenting
opinion- “race is permissible as one of several
criteria”
• Minimized white opposition while achieved
gains for minorities
Grutter v. Bollinger 2003
• Barbara Grutter (white) applied for the
University of Michigan Law School but was
rejected
• The Law School said it uses race as a
factor because it serves a “compelling
interest in achieving diversity among its
student body”.
Decision
• 5 votes for Bollinger, 4 against
• Court said that the Equal Protection
Clause does not prohibit the use of race in
admissions because the Law School
conducts a highly personalized interview
of each student, so the decision is not
based solely on race
Consequences
• Upheld the precedent from University of
CA v. Bakke
• Held that race was allowable as a factor
in admissions as long as it was not the
primary factor
Grutter v. Bollinger Summary
• Grutter was denied admission at a Law
School - she claimed her rejection was
because she was white
• 5-4 Bollinger won- the decision was not
based solely on race, so it was allowable
• Upheld University of CA v. Bakke
precedent
Korematsu v. US 1944
• Presidential Executive Order 9066 and
congressional statutes gave the military
authority to exclude citizens of Japanese
ancestry from areas critical to national
defense during World War II - placed them
in internment camps
• Korematsu stayed in San Leandro,
California, which violated Civilian
Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army
Decision
• 6 votes for United States, 3 votes against
• Need to protect against espionage
outweighed Korematsu’s personal rights
• Compulsory exclusion is justified in
circumstances of “emergency and peril”
Consequences
• Expanded the war powers of the president
and Congress
• Placed national security above personal
freedoms
Korematsu v. US Summary
• During WWII, Japanese were excluded
from certain areas for national security
• Korematsu refused to move from
California
• 6-3 US won- national security outweighs
personal rights
• Expanded war powers
Loving v. Virginia 1967
• Black woman (Mildred Jeter) and white
man (Richard Loving) were married in DC
and then moved back to Virginia
• Couple was charged with violating the
state's anti-miscegenation statute (banned
interracial marriages)
• Question: Does the state law violate the
Equal Protection Clause?
Decision
• 9 votes for Loving, 0 votes against
• Court found that the Virginia law had no
purpose other than blatant racial
discrimination
• The law violated the Due Process Clause
and failed the “rational purpose” test of the
14th Amendment
Consequences
• Freedom to marry resides with the
individual and not the state
• Personal freedoms are protected from
state interference
Loving v. Virginia Summary
• Black woman and white man married in
DC and then moved back to Virginia
• Convicted of violating the Virginia antimiscegenation law
• 9-0 Loving won- Virginia law was purely
racial discrimination that served no
purpose
• Personal freedoms are protected from
state interference
Lochner v. NY 1905
• There was a New York law forbidding
bakers to work more than 60 hours a week
or 10 hours a day
• Lochner violated it by allowing an
employee to work longer, so he was fined
$50
Decision
• 5 votes for Lochner, 4 against
• Court said that the act was
unconstitutional because it interfered with
the freedom of contract
• Court also said that it violated the 14th
Amendment's right to liberty of the
employer and employee - the state could
not interfere and set labor laws
Consequences
• Established a precedent for state
interference with labor laws
• Put power in the hands of employers
Lochner's Bakery
Lochner v. NY Summary
• New York law forbidding bakers from
working over 60 hours/week or 10
hours/day
• Lochner violated it
• 5-4 Lochner won- the law interfered with
the employer and employee’s rights to
liberty
• The state cannot interfere with contracts
• Precedent for striking down labor laws
Slaughterhouse Cases 1873
• Louisiana legislature passed a law
granting a monopoly to the Crescent City
Livestock Landing & Slaughterhouse
Company to slaughter animals around
New Orleans
• Group of local butchers sued Louisiana
arguing that the law violated the "privileges
and immunities" clause of the 14th
Amendment
Decision
• Louisiana won
• Court said the law did not violate the 14th
Amendment
• Court said that the privileges and
immunities clause only forbids the states
from withholding the privileges and
immunities belonging to American
citizenship, not state citizenship
Consequences
• Dissenting opinion of Justice Field argued
that the Fourteenth Amendment protects
the fundamental rights and liberties of all
citizens against state interference
• Dissenting opinion became the lasting
precedent, the opinion of the case is more
of a historical snapshot
Slaughterhouse Cases
Summary
• Monopoly granted in Louisiana to one
slaughterhouse company
• Local butchers sued Louisiana because
they thought the monopoly violated the
14th Amendment’s privileges and
immunities clause
• Louisiana won
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
1937
• Washington State had passed a minimum
wage law for women and children
• Elsie Parrish sued the hotel claiming they
had not paid her the minimum wages
• West Coast Hotel claimed the law was
unconstitutional
Decision
• 5 votes for Parrish, 4 votes against
• Court said that the 14th Amendment does
not prohibit the states' ability to
"reasonably" regulate the certain activities
for the public good
• Constitutional because it reasonably
regulated contracts
Consequences
• Radical and controversial at the time
• Paved the way for laws helping workers
• Expanded the constitutionality of laws- can
be “reasonably” regulatory
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Summary
• Parrish sued the hotel claiming she had
not received the minimum wages
mandated by law
• 5-4 Parrish won- law is constitutional
because it “reasonably” regulates for the
public good
• Established a precedent for government
supporting the workers
Works Cited
• http://legal•
•
•
•
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equal+protect
ion+of+the+law
http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Equal.
htm
http://www.oyez.org/cases
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitali
sm/landmark_westcoast.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebe
llum/landmark_slaughterhouse.html