equal protection/civil righrts protections ISSUES


HERE IS WHERE YOU CAN LEARN A BIT MORE ABOUT EQUAL PROTECTION AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEGAL ISSUES.  I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS CONTENT DOES NOT CONSTITUE LEGAL ADVICE.  CHECK OUT THE OYEZ PROJECT FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE SPECIFIC SUPREME COURT CASES.

what the u.s. supreme court has said about equal protection of the law and civil rights protections.

  • THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS RATIFIED (1868) AND (FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE) PROHIBITS STATES FROM SPONSORING DISCRIMINATION (I.E. RACE, COLOR, CREED, SEX, DISABILITY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION) AGAINST CITIZENS AND (GRADUALLY) APPLIES MOST OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES.
  • THE CONGRESS PASSES THE CIVIL ACT OF 1875 TO PROHIBIT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, AMONG OTHER SECTORS OF SOCIETY.  THE COURT RULES THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.  THIS RULING IS OVERTURNED IN 1964.
  • BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1955) - 14TH AMENDMENT BANS STATE-SPONSORED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SETS THE STAGE FOR THE GENERAL RULE THAT STATES CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A CITIZEN DUE TO RACE, COLOR, CREED OR ANCESTRY OR BEING OF ILLEGIMATE BIRTH STATUS (WITH A FEW NOTABLE EXEMPTIONS).   THIS TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION IS REVIEWED UNDER THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCRUTINY; STRICT.
  • HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNTIED STATES (1964) - THE CONGRESS DOES HAVE THE POWER TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, RELIGION OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE PRIVATE (NON-GOVERNMENTAL) SECTOR.  SAME BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL BAN ON SEX DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT.  SUCH LAWS MUST COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION (SPECFICALLY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT). THIS CONGRESSIONAL POWER COMES FROM THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.
  • WILLIAMS V. RHODES (1969) - THE COURT RULES THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PROTECTS THIRD-POLITICAL PARTY CANDIDATES.  STRIKES DOWN A BALLOT ACCESS LAW SYSTEM THAT MADE IT VERY HARD FOR INDEPENDENT/THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES TO GET ONTO THE ELECTION BALLOT.  FOR MORE DETAILS ABOUT ELECTION/VOTING RIGHTS CASES CLICK HERE.
  • REED V. REED (1971) - 14TH AMENDMENT BANS STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION ON THE ACCOUNT OF A CITIZEN'S SEX.  THIS TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION IS REVIEWED UNDER AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY, ALLOWING FOR MORE STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION ON THE ACCOUNT OF SEX, THEN IS PERMITTED WITH REGARDS TO RACE OR RELIGION.  THIS WOULD LIKELY CHANGE IF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED.
  • CITY OF CLEBURNE V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.  (1985) - THE 14TH AMENDMENT BANS STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION ON THE ACCOUNT OF A CITIZEN'S DISABILITY (IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED). THE WEAKEST LEVEL OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IS USED; RATIONAL.
  • IN 1990, CONGRESS PASSES (AND PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS) THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILTIIES ACT. IT GENERALLY PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY AND REQUIRES THAT REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS BE MADE FOR DISABLED AMERICANS.  A 2002 ARTICLE EXPLORES HOW THE COURT HAS INTERPRETED PROVISIONS OF THIS CIVIL RIGHT LAW.
  • ROMER V. EVANS (1996) - THE 14TH AMENDMENT BANS STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMIMATION ON THE ACCOUNT OF A CITIZEN'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  USE THE SAME LEVEL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AS IS USED FOR DISABLED PERSONS. FOR A MORE DETAILED LOOK AT WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID ABOUT LGBTQ+ RIGHTS ISSUES, CLICK HERE.  

 

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

issues in equal protection/civil rights protections

  • EDCHANGE - EQUITY IN SCHOOLS AND SOCIETY
  • LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

SUGGESTED READING LIST