Wealth-Based Discrimination: Are Constitutional Protections Effective?

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens. This means that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. However, Justice John Harlan opposed reliance on the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that a due process analysis was the proper criterion to follow. He argued that a state's failure to alleviate the consequences of differences in economic circumstances was not a classification forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. Despite this, it has been argued that discrimination against 'indigents' by name would be unconstitutional.

Explore related products

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

$8.96 $17.95

Stolen Wealth, Hidden Power: The Case for Reparations for Mass Incarceration

$23.98 $29.95

Decolonizing Wealth, Second Edition: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance

$11.93 $23.95

The Danger Zone Is Everywhere: How Housing Discrimination Harms Health and Steals Wealth (Volume 73) (American Crossroads)

$28.6 $29.95

The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap

$13.73 $21

Debt's Grip: Risk and Consumer Bankruptcy

$29.95 $29.95

The Equal Protection Clause

For example, the state cannot create a law that only allows wealthy citizens to access certain privileges or benefits. Similarly, the state cannot create a law that targets poor citizens for harsher punishment or denies them the same opportunities as wealthy citizens.

However, it is important to note that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the state to provide equal outcomes for all citizens. Instead, it focuses on ensuring equal treatment under the law, regardless of economic status.

In conclusion, the Equal Protection Clause is a crucial component of the Constitution that protects citizens from wealth-based discrimination. By guaranteeing equal treatment under the law, the Equal Protection Clause helps to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic circumstances, have the same opportunities and protections afforded to them by the law.

Due process

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This means that all citizens are entitled to a fair legal process, regardless of their wealth or social status.

Justice John Harlan argued that a due process analysis was the proper criterion to follow in cases of wealth-based discrimination. He opposed the reliance on the Equal Protection Clause, stating that a state cannot discriminate between the 'rich' and the 'poor' in its system of criminal appeals. However, he acknowledged that a fee system neutral on its face was not a classification forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court has also recognised that discrimination against 'indigents' by name would be unconstitutional. This suggests that while explicit wealth-based discrimination is prohibited, there may be circumstances where the resulting differentiation is not treated as an invidious classification by the state. Nevertheless, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a strong legal basis for challenging wealth-based discrimination and ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly and equally under the law.

Discrimination against 'indigents'

Discrimination against indigents is unconstitutional. The Equal Protection Clause states that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. This means that no State can discriminate between the 'rich' and the 'poor' in its system of criminal appeals.

However, it is important to note that a fee system that is neutral on its face is not a classification forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, as long as the fee system does not explicitly discriminate based on wealth, it is not unconstitutional.

Additionally, the state is not obligated to provide an appeal at all. However, when it does so, it must not structure its system in a way that discriminates against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty.

Overall, while there are some constitutional protections against wealth-based discrimination, the specific circumstances and context of the discrimination play a role in determining whether it is unconstitutional.

Explore related products

Contemporary Employment Law

$119.95 $150.95

How Democratic is the American Constitution? Second Edition

$12.51 $21

Crime and No Punishment: Wealth, Power, and Violence in America

$39.95 $39.95

Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System

$17.27 $14.95

Law, Religion, and Freedom: Conceptualizing a Common Right (ICLARS Series on Law and Religion)

$55.99 $55.99

Social Justice? Book 2: Constitutional Crossroads: Rethinking B-BBEE and Racial Equality in South Africa.: Legal and Policy Arguments for Reforming South ... Black Economic Empowerment - South Africa)

$9.99 $20

Criminal appeals

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US citizens, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means that no state can discriminate between the 'rich' and the 'poor' in its system of criminal appeals.

Justice John Harlan opposed reliance on the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that a due process analysis was the proper criterion to follow. He stated that a fee system neutral on its face was not a classification forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. However, he acknowledged that a state cannot discriminate between the rich and the poor in its criminal appeals system.

The Supreme Court has held that although the state is not obligated to provide an appeal, when it does so, it may not structure its system in a way that discriminates against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty. This means that while the state has discretion in providing appeals, it must ensure that its procedures do not unfairly disadvantage individuals based on their economic status.

In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court jurisprudence provide constitutional protections against wealth-based discrimination in criminal appeals. These protections ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic circumstances, are afforded equal treatment under the law and have access to a fair and impartial appeals process.

Fee systems

The Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that:

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means that the state cannot discriminate against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty. However, Justice John Harlan opposed reliance on the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that a due process analysis was the proper criterion to follow. He stated that:

> It is said that a State cannot discriminate between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ in its system of criminal appeals. That statement of course commands support, but it hardly sheds light on the true character of the problem confronting us here. . . . All that Illinois has done is to fail to alleviate the consequences of differences in economic circumstances that exist wholly apart from any state action.

Harlan argued that a fee system neutral on its face was not a classification forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. However, it is unconstitutional to discriminate against 'indigents' by name.

Frequently asked questions