14th Amendment
Basics, Cases Law, and Application
What it says:
•
Section 1
– Naturalized or born in US= citizen of US
and state
– No state may deprive any PERSON of live,
liberty, or property w/o due process
•
Same as 5th amendment to federal government
– Guarantees equal protection of law
– Note use of person, not citizen!
•
Section 2
– apportionment of HOR representation
based on total population (minus Native
Americans)
– Provision allowed Congressional district
losing votes if all AA suffrage not
guaranteed (never enforced)
What it Says, cont
• Section 3
– Cannot hold pubic office if have violated
oath to uphold the Constitution unless 2/3
vote of Congress approves
• Section 4
– Voids debts to the Confederacy or from loss
of slaves
• Section 5
– Empowers Congress to enact legislation to
enforce Amendment
APPLIES THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO
STATES
Due Process
– No longer means just punishment
– Substantive and procedural
– Early cases upheld economic regulation
(Slaughterhouse Cases and Munn v. IL)
however more recent cases restrain states
in legislating economic matters
– Procedural Due Process
• Procedures used by the government in making,
applying, interpreting, and enforcing law must be
reasonable and consistent
– Substantive Due Process
• Government can’t make laws that apply to
situations that government has no business
interfering; i.e.. The substance or purpose of the
law must be constitutional
• Prohibits government from interfering in areas
they have no right
Equal Protection
• Originally dealt with only state actions and
not private actions
– Many African-Americans denied redress from
courts for discrimination at the hands of private
individuals
– Plessy v. Ferguson- “separate but equal” doctrine;
held until 1930
• After 1930, court allowed states to make
economic legislation regardless if concern
was for public interest
• Equal protection also could be met if
distinctions made upon “reasonable
classifications”
• States given more power in economic
legislation, power to limit personal liberties
restricted
Equal Protection Clause
• 1st Amendment applied to states
through substantive due process clause
• Clause became main weapon to protect
rights of African-Americans
• Brown v. BOE (1954) strikes down
separate but equal clause
• Recently used to protect rights of
women; privacy rights, and abortion
(Roe v. Wade)
• Has not been used to protect all privacy
issues; Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
upheld antisodomy laws
– Reversed in 2003 and voided all antisodomy
laws
Important Cases
• Strauder v. WV (1880)
– Black male convicted of murder by an allwhite male jury because WV law barred
blacks from jury duty
– Court held exclusion of blacks from juries
was denial of equal protection
• Civil Rights Cases (1883)
– Questions constitutionality of Civil Rights Act
of 1875
– Court said discrimination was private,
actions of innkeepers, theaters owners, etc
and thus ok since it was not a state actionit was a “private wrong”
Levels of Equal Protection Scrutiny
• US v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
– Footnotes include a commerce clause and a
substantive due process clause
– Called for “more searching judicial inquiry”
• Hirabayashi v. US (1943) and Korematsu
v. US (1944)
– Articulated a “strict scrutiny” principle
though term not used until Loving v. VA
(1967)
– Craig v. Boren (1976) intermediate scrutiny
used
Levels of Equal Protection Scrutiny
• Strict Scrutiny
– Used for classifications based on race
– Law unconstitutional unless "narrowly tailored"
to serve a "compelling" government interest.
– Cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative
available to achieve that compelling interest
• Intermediate Scrutiny
– Used for classifications based on sex
– Law unconstitutional unless it is "substantially
related" to an "important" government interest
• Rational-basis Test
– Used on classifications other than race and sex
– Constitutional as long as it is "reasonably
related" to a "legitimate" government interest
4th level?
• Some say Justice Ginsburg changed the
language of intermediate scrutiny in US
v VA
• Instead of intermediate scrutiny,
demands litigants demonstrate an
"exceedingly persuasive" argument to
justify gender discrimination
QUESTION:
In what other instances do
we treat people unequally?
Intent vs. Disparate Effects
• Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971)
– (1) if an employer's policy has disparate
racial consequences, and (2) if the employer
can't give a reasonable justification for such
a policy on grounds of "business necessity,"
then the employer's policy violates Title VII
of Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids job
discrimination based on sex, race, or
religion
– “Business necessity" requires the employer
to prove that whatever is causing the racial
disparity—be it a test, an educational
requirement, a hiring practice—has a
demonstrable factual relationship to making
the company more profitable
Intent v. Disparate Effects
• Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
Housing Corp. (1977)
– Court ruled, "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or
purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause." Disparate impact merely has an
evidentiary value; absent a "stark" pattern, "impact is
not determinative"
• Supporters say
– equal protection does not mean equal outcomes,
only equal opportunity
– therefore, “we shouldn't be concerned with trying to
fix every racially disparate effect—we should worry
about only intentional bigotry.”
– Courts are only enforcing equal protection clause,
that the legislature should correct disparate effects
with legislation
• Critics say
– Bigotry is unconscious and the we must remedy
disparate effects
Suspect Classes
• Suspect Class Status
– status that makes a law that categorizes on that
basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater
judicial scrutiny
– Supreme Court only recognizing women and racial
minorities
• City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.
(1985)
– Refused to make the mentally retarded a suspect
class though did examine more harshly than the
rational basis test
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
– Struck down a homosexual sodomy law because it
only applied to homosexual sodomy and not
heterosexual sodomy as well
• Court has not extended suspect classification
to sexual orientation
Suspect Class, cont
• Romer v. Evans (1996)
– Court ruled the CO Constitutional
amendment that would have prevented any
city, town or county in the state from taking
any legislative, executive, or judicial action
to protect homosexual citizens from
discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation was unconstitutional
QUESTION:
In what other instances do we
treat people unequally?
Other Substantives Due Process Case
Topics
• Affirmative Action Cases
– Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
(1978)
• Desegregation Cases
– Plessy and Brown
– Busing to achieve
• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE (1971)
• Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
• Voting Rights
– Baker v. Carr (1962) 1st to use equal protection
clause re: voting rights
– Reynolds v. Sims (1964) _ One man, one vote
doctrine
• Bush v. Gore (2000); different standards for
counting ballots across Florida violated Equal
Protection clause
Procedural Due Process Cases