Equal Protection
What this domain tests
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause limits classifications by government. The exam tests the tiered scrutiny framework and current doctrine on race, gender, alienage, and affirmative action.
Core rules
- Strict scrutiny: race, national origin, and alienage classifications must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored.
- Intermediate scrutiny: gender and legitimacy classifications must serve an exceedingly persuasive justification and be substantially related.
- Rational basis: age, poverty, disability, and most economic classifications are presumed valid if rationally related to a legitimate interest.
- Intent requirement: facially neutral laws violate equal protection only with discriminatory purpose, as in Washington v. Davis.
- Affirmative action: SFFA v. Harvard (2023) held race-conscious higher-education admissions violate equal protection and overruled Grutter's deference.
- Voting: Reynolds v. Sims requires substantial equality in state legislative districts.
Worked example
Virginia operates an all-male public military college and denies admission to qualified women. Under United States v. Virginia, gender classifications require an exceedingly persuasive justification. The state's interest in diversity or tradition is insufficient, and the exclusion is not substantially related to educational effectiveness. The policy fails intermediate scrutiny.
Traps
- Brown overruled Plessy; separate but equal is invalid in public education.
- Benign race classifications still receive strict scrutiny.
- A discriminatory effect alone does not trigger strict scrutiny without intent.
- Alienage exceptions exist for self-government functions.
- Sexual orientation has no settled equal protection tier; do not assume strict scrutiny.