To: TigerPaw who wrote (33390 ) 8/30/2000 1:36:36 PM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to equal protection: an overviewprohibits a state from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 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 only because he was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only the "equal application" of the laws. Therefore, the result of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying the state the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination. 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 activity and denies other individuals the right to participate. 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 it's effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court would find a state classification constitutional if it had "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." However, the Supreme Court has applied a more stringent analysis in certain types of cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a state 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 it has a compelling interest in the law and that the classification is necessary to further a compelling state interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with a fundamental right such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court has also required states to show more than a rational basis (though it did not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for a classification if it is based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate. The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. However, actions by the federal government that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V. law.cornell.edu
