The Constitution's Anti-Discrimination Clause: Equality For All

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people. The Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has been central to challenging discriminatory practices and policies, with the Supreme Court interpreting it to prohibit discrimination on various grounds, including race, national origin, and gender. This clause has been pivotal in landmark cases addressing segregation, affirmative action, and social equality, shaping the legal landscape of civil rights in the United States.

Characteristics and Values

Explore related products

Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause: Congressional Power, Judicial Doctrine, and Constitutional Law

$65 $72

San Antonio v. Rodriguez and the Pursuit of Equal Education: The Debate over Discrimination and School Funding

$24.99 $39.95

For Equals Only: Race, Equality, and the Equal Protection Clause (Philosophy of Race)

$43.19 $47.99

Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause (Routledge Research in Constitutional Law)

$55.16 $72.99

24x36 Gallery Poster, The U.S. Supreme Court Building Opened in 1935, inscribed with The Words Equal Justice Under Law which were Inspired by The Equal Protection Clause. [ 52 ]

$52.95

24x36 Gallery Poster, Justice John Marshall Harlan II Sought to interpret The Equal Protection Clause in The Context of Section 2 of The Same Amendment

$52.95

The Fourteenth Amendment

> "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."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Act outlaws segregation in public places, such as theatres, restaurants, and hotels, and makes it illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. It also prohibits the unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools and other public accommodations.

The legislation was first proposed by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963, but it faced strong opposition in the Senate, including a 72-day filibuster led by the "'Southern Bloc'" of 18 southern Democratic Senators. After Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the bill forward. The bill finally passed the Senate on June 19, 1964, and was signed into law on July 2, 1964.

The Equal Protection Clause

> "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate. While it has been used to challenge racial discrimination, the Court explicitly allowed sexism and other types of discrimination to persist, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prohibit discrimination "because of race or color" only. The Court has also decided that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities.

Explore related products

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

On Equal Terms: The Constitutional Politics of Educational Opportunity

$28.67 $47

Equal Protection (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

Equal Protection: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (Constitutional Law Series)

$4.99

Equal Protection: Documents Decoded

$80.1 $89

Affirmative Action

The Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Protection Clause prohibit discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin. Affirmative action is a complex and contentious issue that has been the subject of much debate and litigation in the United States. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it promotes equality and representation for disadvantaged or historically oppressed groups, such as women and minorities. They contend that it counteracts conscious and unconscious biases that still exist today, such as studies showing that job applicants with African American-sounding names are less likely to be called back for interviews than those with white-sounding names.

On the other hand, opponents of affirmative action argue that it constitutes racism or discrimination against other racial and ethnic groups, such as Asian Americans and White Americans. They believe that affirmative action entails favouring one group over another based on racial preference rather than achievement. Additionally, some argue that the diversity of contemporary American society suggests that affirmative action policies have succeeded and are no longer required.

The Supreme Court has addressed affirmative action in several landmark cases. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court upheld the use of race as a factor in university admissions, but prohibited the use of racial quotas. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1994), the Court held that a federal affirmative action program is constitutional when narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, such as remedying past discrimination. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court struck down the use of a point system that gave applicants an automatic boost based on race but allowed for the consideration of race as one of several factors in admissions decisions.

More recently, in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2019), the District Court of Massachusetts ruled in favour of Harvard, finding that while imperfect, their admissions system passed constitutional muster and did not discriminate against Asian-American applicants. This decision was upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2022 alongside a similar case involving the University of North Carolina.

At the state level, affirmative action has also been a subject of controversy. In 2010, Arizona voters passed Proposition 107, a constitutional ban on government-sponsored affirmative action. On the other hand, California's Proposition 16 (2020) sought to reinstate affirmative action in public employment, education, and contracting, but was ultimately defeated by voters. These ongoing legal and political debates reflect the complex and evolving nature of affirmative action in the United States.

Racial Discrimination

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, introduced the Equal Protection Clause, which was intended to stop states from discriminating against black people. The text of the clause is very broad, and it has evolved significantly since its inception. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not forbid government policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities. However, the clause has been interpreted to prevent the federal government from discriminating, and it has been applied in landmark cases concerning racial discrimination.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for blacks and whites did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling was a precedent for government-imposed segregation until 1954, when Brown v. Board of Education unanimously overruled Plessy, holding that separate schools for blacks and whites were unconstitutional. This was a turning point in the struggle to dismantle segregation in American society.

The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 and the case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents in 1950 further shaped the legal landscape regarding racial discrimination. In the Civil Rights Cases, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was at issue. The Court allowed sexism and other types of discrimination to persist, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to prevent discrimination based on race or color. In the McLaurin case, the University of Oklahoma admitted McLaurin, an African-American student, but restricted his activities, leading the Court to rule that the university had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws.

In summary, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are key components in the Constitution's prohibition of racial discrimination. These provisions have been interpreted and applied through significant court cases, shaping the legal framework that protects individuals from racial discrimination in various aspects of life, including education, employment, and access to public accommodations.

Frequently asked questions