Jonah Patel
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law. The Fourteenth Amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868, was intended to prevent states from discriminating against African Americans and to validate the equality provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Amendment has since been interpreted to prohibit discrimination on bases other than race and to apply to the federal government as well. The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, including over whether it forbids governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Part of the US Constitution | The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution |
| Date of Effect | 1868 |
| Purpose | To stop states from discriminating against blacks and validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 |
| Scope | The broad wording of the clause has led to its interpretation to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination and discrimination based on other factors |
| Interpretation | The Supreme Court has interpreted that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities |
| Application | The Equal Protection Clause has been read into the Fifth Amendment to prevent the federal government from discriminating |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment
The most commonly used and frequently litigated phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which has been central to a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), and Bush v. Gore (election recounts). The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
Exploring the Constitution: Broken into Several Key Parts
You may want to see also
The Civil Rights Act of 1866
The language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is very similar to that of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868 and ratified in 1870. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment marked a significant shift in American constitutionalism by applying many more constitutional restrictions against the states than before the Civil War. While the original purpose of the Equal Protection Clause was to protect African Americans from discrimination, its broad wording has led to its interpretation to prohibit all racial discrimination and discrimination on bases other than race.
Checks and Balances: Constitutional Cornerstone?
You may want to see also
The Thirteenth Amendment
Lincoln recognised that the Emancipation Proclamation would need to be followed by a constitutional amendment to truly abolish slavery. He made the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment his top legislative priority after winning reelection in 1864. Lincoln played an active role in ensuring its passage through Congress, adding it to the Republican Party platform for the 1864 election. The House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. On February 1, 1865, Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures.
The Constitution: Framing Government's Purpose and Role
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$11.99 $17.99
The Supreme Court's interpretation
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which came into effect in 1868, contains the Equal Protection Clause. This clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law and that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that all racial discrimination, including against whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans, is constitutionally suspect. The broad wording of the clause has also allowed the Court to interpret it to prevent the federal government from discriminating, not just state governments.
In the case of San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1882), the Supreme Court considered whether corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Roscoe Conkling, a lawyer and former politician, argued that corporations were included in the meaning of the term "person" and thus entitled to the same rights. He claimed that he knew this to be the intention of the drafting committee, as he had been a member of it. However, legal historians later found that Conkling had fabricated this notion.
The Supreme Court has also interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on bases other than race. Most laws are assessed under "rational basis scrutiny," where any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. For example, in the case of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977), the Court decided that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities. In this case, a housing developer sued a city that had refused to rezone a plot of land for low-income, racially integrated housing. While there was no clear evidence of racially discriminatory intent, the refusal resulted in a racially disparate impact, preventing mostly African Americans and Hispanics from moving in.
The Equal Protection Clause has been central to a series of school integration cases, such as Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, both decided in 1950. In the latter case, the University of Oklahoma admitted McLaurin, an African American, but restricted his activities, requiring him to sit apart from other students and eat at a designated table in the cafeteria. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Oklahoma had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws, establishing a "Constitutional difference" between restrictions imposed by the state and private choices.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted in different ways over time. While its original purpose was to protect African Americans from discrimination, the Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that racial segregation by the government did not violate the Constitution as long as the facilities were "separate but equal." This ruling contradicted the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, and decades later, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court abandoned this precedent, holding that even voluntary desegregation efforts could constitute racial discrimination.
Citing the US Constitution in Chicago Style: A Quick Guide
You may want to see also
The Equal Protection Clause
The primary motivation behind the Equal Protection Clause was to validate the equality provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed all citizens the right to equal protection under the law. The clause was also intended to address the injustices faced by black Americans, who were previously considered inferior to whites and lacked crucial legal protections. The Supreme Court has since interpreted the clause's broad wording to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination, not just those targeting black Americans.
The Constitution's Favorite Part: Don't Step On It!
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.
The Equal Protection Clause came into effect in 1868, after the Civil War.
The original purpose of the Equal Protection Clause was to protect blacks from discrimination and validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
While the original intent was to protect against racial discrimination, the broad wording of the Clause has led the Supreme Court to interpret it as prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination, including against whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans.
The interpretation of whether corporations are included in the Equal Protection Clause has been debated. In the San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case in 1882, lawyer Roscoe Conkling argued that corporations were included in the meaning of the term "person" and thus entitled to equal protection rights.
