NAME:
LESSON:
SOURCE:
TIME:
MATERIALS:
Wes Brenner
Equal Protection
Street Law Handbook, Street Law Teacher’s Guide
One 60-minute class period
PowerPoint Presentation, Donuts, Candy, Index Cards
I.
GOALS
A.
Introduce basic Equal Protection concepts
B.
Introduce students to balanced discussions about controversial issues
C.
Enable students to use past court decisions (precedent) to support
arguments in a new case
D.
Provide a foundation for subsequent classroom debates
II.
OBJECTIVES
A.
Knowledge
1.
Identify important facts in a fact pattern
2.
Identify reasons for and against a particular outcome in a case
3.
Learn how a court may justify an outcome
4.
Understand that the constitution is open to different interpretations
and applications
6.
Understand the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s text
7.
Recognize exceptions to the basic 14th principle
8.
Understand what the 14th Amendment protects and why it doesn’t
protect
B.
Skills
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
C.
Active listening
Collaboration with peers
Critical thinking skills through brainstorming
Develop confidence in stating opinions in a clear and concise
manner
To be able to see the opposing view
Engaging in respectful debate
Analyzing simple hypotheticals and determine if activity is
protected or not
Attitude
1.
The study of our constitutional rights can be relevant and
interesting
2.
Knowing the law can help an individual protect their rights
3.
Because laws are open to different interpretations and applications,
each person’s perspective enhances our understanding of what
“law” is
4.
III.
Respecting and understanding others viewpoints is instrumental to
gaining more knowledge
CLASSROOM METHODS
A.
Equal Protection Introduction Activity:
a. Split class into 2 random groups based on color of index cards
b. Seating:
i. Group 1 gets to sit in chair
ii. Group 2 has to sit on floor
c. Treats:
i. Group 1 gets donuts
ii. Group 2 has to share small box of candy
d. Assignment:
i. Group 1 gets free time
ii. Group 2 is given a fake pop quiz
e. Debate:
i. Is this fair?
ii. Why or why not?
iii. Try to get students to begin to discuss the concept of equal
protection
B.
PowerPoint Presentation on 14th Amendment law
a. Introduce basic equal protection law
i. Show the 14th Amendment
ii. Acts to protect discrimination primarily against “suspect
classes”—primarily race and religion
iii. Laws that discriminate “on their face” get strict scrutiny—
government must show “compelling” interest and narrow
tailoring
iv. Facially-neutral laws can still be invalidated if:
1. Law was enacted “because of,” not merely “in spite of,”
discriminatory effect
2. There is discriminatory impact
3. Government cannot show that it would have passed law
even if race was not consideration
v. Open discussion on “Why?”
1. Ask them why we protect discrimination against
“suspect classes”
b. Give class hypotheticals to apply equal protection law to. Have the
class decide as a group whether they think each scenario is protected
under the 14th before giving them the answer.
i. Can government close public pools in response to
desegregation?
1. Yes, according to Palmer v. Thompson, because all
races affected equally, and opposite rule would require
government to keep pools open forever.
ii. Can government administer police officer testing program that
whites pass at much higher rates than blacks?
1. Yes, according to Washington v. Davis, because the test
was not intended to discriminate, just to select qualified
officers.
iii. Can government separate inmates by race during initial 60-day
holding period, if it shows that mixing races causes increased
gang violence?
1. No, according to Johnson v. California, because this is
a racial classification subject to strict scrutiny—
individualized considerations when assigning inmates
would be more narrow tailoring.
iv. Can government maintain capital punishment system that has
been shown to adversely-affect blacks (Baldus Study showed
that killers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be
sentenced to death, that blacks who killed whites received
death penalty 22% of time vs. 12% of time for all other racecombinations, and that only 1% of blacks who killed blacks
received capital punishment)?
1. Yes, according to McClesky v. Kemp, because it could
not be shown that death penalty was enacted because of
discriminatory effect, and each jury is unique in its
composition and motivation.
c. Answer student questions as they arise
d. Wrap up discussion:
i. How do you feel about the state of equal protection law?
ii. Changes/recommendation you would make?
IV.
EVALUATION
A.
Participation in group activity
B.
Active listening and participation during the lecture
C.
Understanding of basic equal protection principles
D.
Speaking and debate skills
V.
ASSIGNMENT
A.
Pick one of the scenarios discussed in class. Write half a page on
why you agree or disagree with the ruling. To be turned in at next
class period.
Slide 1
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
WES BRENNER AND KYLE FARNAM
APRIL 11, 2008
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 2
___________________________________
___________________________________

Introduction to Equal Protection Law
 The Text of the Equal Protection Clause (E.P.C.)
 Who is Protected?
 Can the Government Ever Discriminate?

Class Hypotheticals
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 3
___________________________________
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
“All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall…deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws”
START WITH THE TEXT…
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 4
___________________________________

First, must consider whether a law affects a protected
class: race, religion, and alienage are the major ones



If a law doesn’t affect one of these classes, it is much less likely
to violate the E.P.C.—generally, only requires a “rational basis”
Does this mean the state can discriminate against drug users?
Next, consider whether the law is “facially-neutral”


Laws that discriminate in the text must pass “strict scrutiny,”
which includes a “compelling” state interest AND “narrow
tailoring”
It is very difficult to pass strict scrutiny—in racial discrimination,
only the “greatest imminent danger to public safety” has been
considered a compelling interest (Korematsu v. U.S. (1944))
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 5
___________________________________
 This
kind of law can still be invalidated, but only
if three factors are present:
The law must have been passed “because of,” and not
merely “in spite of,” its discriminatory effect
 The law must have a discriminatory impact
 The Government cannot demonstrate that it still would
have passed the same law even if the discriminatory
effect was not a factor

___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 6
___________________________________
Supreme Court held that Jackson,
Mississippi, could close all of its public pools
in response to desegregation without
violating the E.P.C. The closing affected all
races equally, and an opposite outcome
would essentially force Jackson to keep its
pools open indefinitely.
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971)
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 7
___________________________________
Police officer testing system was not
intended to harm minorities, and
therefore did not violate the E.P.C.
___________________________________
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 8
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 9
David Baldus, a professor at University of
Iowa Law School, published a study looking
According
to the Supreme
Court, no! After
at over
2,500 murder
cases in Georgia.
The death
penaltyaround
was not
taking
into account
40enacted
non-racial
“because
of”
its
discriminatory
Does the
death penalty,
at
variables,
he concluded
that defendants
effects—only
“in
spite
of”
them,
charged
with
killing whites
were 4.3at
times
least
in
Georgia,
violate
the
most.
Likewise,
each
jury
is
unique,
so
more likely to receive the death penalty.
no
general
conclusions
can
be
drawn
Equalblack
Protection
Likewise,
defendantsClause?
charged with
aboutwhite
how juries
act.
Therefore,
no
killing
victims
received
the death
violation.
penalty 22%E.P.C.
of the
time, vs. 12% for all
other categories. Finally, only 1% blacks
McClesky
v. Kemp,
481 U.S.
279 (1987)
who
killed black
victims
received
the death
penalty.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________