Equal Protection of the Law
Liam Penland
Equal Protection of the Law (14th
Amendment)
• Each state is required to provide equal
protection under the law to all people under
its jurisdiction. The equal protection clause is
designed to provide equal application of the
law to all citizens. The clause protects civil
rights by denying states the ability to
discriminate.
Equal Protection of the Law (14th
Amendment)
• A question of whether the equal protection
clause has been violated generally arises when
a state grants a particular class of individuals
the right to engage in an activity yet denies
other individuals the same right. If a law
discriminates between one group of people
over another, the government must have a
rational basis for doing so.
Korematsu v. United States 1944
Case Background
• President Franklin Roosevelt made an
executive order during WWII that gave the
military authority to put people of Japanese
descent into internment camps regardless of
citizenship to protect the country from
espionage. Fred Korematsu was charged and
convicted of not reporting to the internment
camps.
Decision and Consequences
• The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the
United States stating that the need to protect
against espionage outweighed Korematsu's
rights. In 1988, Congress issued a formal apology
for the suffering the internment order had
caused, and in 1989 authorized reparations of
$20,000 to each of the approximately 60,000
survivors of the internment camps, many of
which were farmers who were forced to sell their
land at a fraction of what it was actually worth.
Decision and Consequences
• 3 of the judges dissented in the case stating
reasons like: Korematsu was punished just
because his ancestors were Japanese,
internment camps were another name for
prison, and the internment was based on halftruths that have been directed at Japanese
Americans by people with racial and economic
prejudices.
Decision and Consequences
• In 1998 Korematsu was presented with the
Presidential Medal of Freedom.
• In 2011 Solicitor General Neal Katyal admitted
that one of his predecessors had hid a report
from the Office of Naval Intelligence that
concluded Japanese Americans on the West
Coast did not pose a military threat.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Case Background
• Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a
black woman, and Richard Loving, a white
man, were married in the District of Columbia.
Shortly thereafter the Lovings returned to
Virginia. The couple was then charged with
violating the state's law which banned interracial marriages. The Lovings were found
guilty and sentenced to a year in jail.
Decision and Consequences
• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loving 90, rejecting Virginia's argument that the
statute was legitimate because it applied
equally to both races. The court also ruled
that the case violated the Equal Protection
Clause. The decision helped get rid of the
same law in the remaining 16 states.
Outcome
• Since the decision there has been an increase
in interracial marriages in the U.S.
• June 12th each year is known as Loving Day
Works Cited
• "Equal Protection." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.
• Konkoly, Toni. "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 23
Mar. 2013.
• "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law. 22
March 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19401949/1944/1944_22>.
• "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 23 Mar.
2013.
• Savage, David G. "U.S. Official Cites Misconduct in Japanese American
Internment Cases."Los
Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 May
2011. Web. 23 Mar. 2013.
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395