CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS STRAND OF EQUAL PROTECTION – NOTES SUMMARY Professor Tiffany C. Graham March 7, 2021 DI FFE R ENCE B E T W E EN R E G ULAR E QUAL PROT E CT I ON AND T H E FUNDAME NTAL R I G H T S ST R AND OF E QUAL PROT E CT I ON Regular Equal Protection Fundamental Rights/Interests Strand of Equal Protection Focuses on laws or policies that classify people differently on the basis of a characteristic that opens them up to invidious treatment. Focuses on the unequal distribution of a right/interest, or unequal burdening of a right/interest, when that right/interest has been deemed fundamental. (N.B. If the doctrine is applicable, strict scrutiny will apply.) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VERSUS FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS Fundamental rights • Enumerated rights and unenumerated rights protected under the DPC of the 5th and 14th Amendments Fundamental interests • A set of implied liberty interests that are fundamental for purposes of equal protection, but not for purposes of the Due Process Clause • These interests include the right to vote (really, it is the right to participate in elections on an equal basis), freedom to travel (also protected under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment), and the right of access to courts • Sidenote: felon disenfranchisement statutes do not violate the right to vote THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURTS In the criminal context, this right includes the right of access to the first level of appellate review (i.e., the first court of appeal, not the Supreme Court (state or federal) • As a result, there is a right to free trial transcripts and a right of counsel for indigent defendants in order to facilitate the right to first-level appellate review How does the right of access to courts manifest in the civil context? • The Court has said that indigent parties who are appealing the termination of parental rights have a right to a trial transcript when they file an appeal • In addition, states must waive court fees and costs for indigent parties who wish to file for divorce DEMETRIO RODRIGUEZ, LEAD PLAINTIFF IN SAN ANTONIO V. RODRIGUEZ • The parents of children in a poor school district sued the state of Texas, arguing that the funding system created substantial inter-district disparities in per-pupil spending. ARGUMENT IN RODRIGUEZ • The parents argued that this violated the EPC. • Why? Because public school funding in Texas was based on the collection of local taxes. • Since wealthier districts had higher tax bases, they were able to assess taxes at lower rates and still collect more money than was collected in poorer districts. The state contributed a little bit of money in order to eliminate some of the disparities, but those monies were not enough to eliminate all of them. Are classifications based on wealth inherently suspect? Is the right to an education a fundamental right for equal protection purposes? TWO ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT IN RODRIGUEZ FIRST: THE COURT FOUND THAT WEALTH CLASSIFIC ATIONS WERE NOT INHERENTLY SUSPECT SECOND: THE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION PLYLER V. DOE • The Court evaluated the constitutionality of a decision authorizing local school districts to exclude from public schools any children who could not prove legal presence in the United States (and who could not pay full tuition fees) HOLDING OF PLYLER V DOE • Excluding undocumented children from a public school education did not rationally further any substantial interest by the state. • Even though education is not a fundamental right (see Rodriguez) and undocumented status is not a suspect classification, the Court found that the attempt to deprive undocumented children of a public school education punished them for something that was not their fault (namely, they were unlawfully present in the United States because of the actions of their parents rather than their own actions). In addition, exclusion would have the effect of turning them into a permanent underclass because the lack of an education would prevent them from improving their lives. • Takeaway point: It violates the Equal Protection Clause to deprive undocumented children of a public school education based on their undocumented status. • Which of the following is an incorrect statement of law? • A. Felon disenfranchisement statutes do not violate the fundamental right to vote. • B. Denying equal access to the ballot on the basis of sex or race violates the right to vote. PRACTICE QUESTION 1 • C. Indigent defendants have a right to counsel when pursuing all discretionary appeals. • D. States may not condition appeals from trial court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent’s ability to pay for record preparation fees. PRACTICE QUESTION 2 Public schools in State Alpha are largely financed by revenue derived from real estate taxes imposed by each school district on the taxable real property located in that district. Public schools also receive other revenue from private gifts, federal grants, student fees, and local sales taxes. Alpha attempts to equalize the funds available on a perstudent basis in each public school district by distributing additional funds from the state treasury based on a formula that considers only the number of students in each district and the real estate tax revenue raised by that district. The formula does not consider other revenue received by a school district from different sources. As a result, funding remains unequal. The school boards of two school districts, together with parents and schoolchildren in those districts, bring suit in federal court to enjoin the state from allocating the additional funds based on this formula. They allege that the failure of the state to account for a school district’s non-real estate based sources of revenue violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following best describes the appropriate standard by which the court should review the constitutionality of the state funding formula? (See the answer choices on the next slide.) A. Because classifications based on wealth are inherently suspect, the state must demonstrate that the formula is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. B. Because the funding formula burdens the fundamental right to an education, the state must demonstrate that the formula is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. ANSWER CHOICES FOR PRACTICE QUESTION 2 C. Because no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated in this case, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the funding formula bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. D. Because the funding formula inevitably leads to disparities among the school districts in their levels of total funding, the plaintiffs must only demonstrate that the formula is not substantially related to the furtherance of an important state interest.
