下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U. S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words,the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur,for example,if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide“equality”among individuals or classes but only“equal application”of the laws. The result,therefore,of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate,the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.
Generally,the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally,the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has“a rational basis”to a“legitimate state purpose. ”The Supreme Court,however,has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will“strictly scrutinize”a distinction when it embodies a“suspect classification. ”In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny,it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually,if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race,national origin,or,in some situations,non‐U. S. citizenship（the suspect classes）. In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven,by the state,that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights,the right to privacy,or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis（though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test）for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.
The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government,however,that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will,under similar circumstances,violate the due process of the Fifth Amendment.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has no counterpart in the Constitution applicable to the federal government；it is limited to state action. Nevertheless,it is clear that grossly unreasonable discrimination by the federal government violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Thus,there are really two equal protection guarantees. The Court applies the same standards under either constitutional provision.
The mere fact that legislation or governmental action has a discriminatory effect is not sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny. There must be intent to discriminate on the part of the government. Intent can be shown in three ways:（i）facial discrimination；（ii）discriminatory application；（iii）discriminatory motive.
A law may include a classification on its face. This type oflaw,by its own terms,makes an explicit distinction between classes of persons（perhaps by race or gender；e. g. ,all while males 21 or older may serve asjurors）. In such cases the courts merely have to apply the appropriate standard of review for that classification.
In some instances,a law that appears to be neutral on its face will be applied in a different manner to different classes of persons. If the persons challenging the governmental action can prove that the government officials applying the law had a discriminatory purpose（and used discriminatory standards based on traits such as race or gender）,the law will be invalidated.
Sometimes a government action will appear to be neutral on its face and in its application,but will have disproportionate impact on a particular class of persons（such as a racial minority or women）. Such a law will be found to involve a classification（and be subjected to the level of scrutiny appropriate to that classification）only if a court finds that the lawmaking body enacted or maintained the law for a discriminatory purpose. In such cases,the court should admit into evidence statistical proofthat the law has a disproportionate impact on one class ofpersons. However,mere statistical evidence will rarely be sufficient in itself to prove that the government had a discriminatory purpose in passing a law. Statistical evidence may be combined with other evidence of legislative or administrative intent to show that a law or regulation is the product of a discriminatory purpose.
If governmental action classifies persons based on exercise of a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification（race,national origin,or alienage）,strict scrutiny is applied. The result is invalidation of almost every case where the classification would burden a person because of her status as a member of a racial or national origin minority. The only explicit race discrimination upheld despite strict scrutiny was the wartime incarceration of United States citizens of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast.
（1）School Integration
Recall that only intentional discrimination will be found to create discriminatory classifications calling for strict scrutiny；thus,only intentional segregation in schools will be invalidated under equal protection.
（2）“Benign”Government Discrimination—Affirmative Action
Government action—whether by federal,state,or local governmental bodies—that favors racial or ethnic minorities is subject to strict scrutiny,as is government action discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities.
（3）Discriminatory Legislative Apportionment
Race can be considered in drawing up new voting districts,but it cannot be the predominant factor. If a plaintiff can show that a redistricting plan was draw up predominantly on the basis of racial considerations,the plan will violate the Equal Protection Clause unless the government can show that the plan is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
（4）Private Affirmative Action
Private employees,of course,are not restricted by the Equal Protection Clause,since the Clause applies only to the government,and private employers lack state action. Nevertheless,Congress has adopted statutes regulating private discrimination by employers pursuant to its power under the enabling provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commerce Clause. Thus,if ask whether private employer discrimination is valid,the answer generally cannot be based on equal protection.
Classifications
（1）Federal Classifications
The standard for review of federal government classification based on alienage are not clear,but they never seem to be subject to strict scrutiny.
（2）State and local classifications
State/local laws are subject to strict scrutiny if based on alienage. A“compelling state interest”must be shown to justify disparate treatment. For example,a state law requiring United States citizenship for welfare benefits,civil service jobs,or a license to practice law will be struck down because there is no compelling interest justifying the requirement.
Classifications based on gender or legitimacy are almost always suspect. When analyzing government action based on such classifications,the Court will apply the intermediate standard and strike the action unless it is substantially related to an important government interest.
The Court has expressly held that government bears the burden of proof in gender discrimination cases and that an“exceedingly persuasive justification”is required in order to show that gender discrimination is substantially related to an important government interest.
（1）Intentional Discrimination Against Women
Gender classifications that intentionally discriminate against women will generally be invalid under the intermediate standard,because the government is unable to show the“exceedingly persuasive justification”that is required.
（2）Affirmative Action Benefiting Women
Classifications benefiting women that are designed to remedy past discrimination against women will generally be upheld.
（3）Intentional Discrimination Against Men
Intentional discrimination against men generally is invalid. However,a number of laws have been held valid as being substantially related to an important government interest.
Distinctions drawn between legitimate and illegitimate children are also reviewed under the intermediate scrutiny standard. Such classifications“must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. ”
（1）No Punitive Purpose
When the Court examines a classification based on illegitimacy,it gives greater attention to the purpose behind the distinction. It will not uphold discriminatory legislation intended to punish the offspring ofillicit relationships.
（2）Statute of Limitations on Paternity Suits May Be Discriminatory
Due to the plenary power over immigration,the Court upheld a federal law granting immigration preferences to legitimate children.