Cameron Miranda
The belief that people should be treated equally under the law is a cornerstone of political thought in the United States. However, this has not always been the case throughout the nation's history, and some groups continue to be treated differently even today. While laws that treat one group of people differently from others are not always unconstitutional, the government must demonstrate a good reason for engaging in discrimination. The courts will apply the rational basis test, which assesses whether there is a reason for the differential treatment that is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. For example, a law forbidding blind people from driving is reasonably justified on safety grounds, despite discriminating against the blind. In other cases, such as discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion, the courts will apply the strict scrutiny standard, which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in treating one group differently from another.
Characteristics of laws treating people differently
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Age | In most states, you must be 18 years old to smoke cigarettes and 21 to drink alcohol. |
| Education | Some public colleges and universities have an open admissions policy, while others require a high school diploma or a certain score on the SAT or ACT, or a GPA above a certain number. |
| Driving | To obtain a driver's license, you must be of minimum age and pass tests demonstrating your knowledge, practical skills, and vision. |
| Racial Discrimination | The Equal Protection Clause was intended to stop states from discriminating against black people. However, the text is worded very broadly, and it has evolved beyond its original purpose. |
| Sexual Orientation | The Court's decision in Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or [a] claim of discrimination." |
| Gender Discrimination | In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), a statute was deemed unconstitutional when it provided that spouses of male members of the uniformed services would be considered dependents, but spouses of female members would not be considered dependents unless they were, in fact, dependent. |
| Disability | In some cases, the Court has examined the denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational basis test. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment
One of the key aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment is the concept of "equal protection of the laws," which has been central to numerous landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and Reed v. Reed. This clause ensures that no state can make or enforce any law that infringes on the privileges or immunities of US citizens, nor can they deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection under the law. The Equal Protection Clause was specifically written to prevent the enforcement of discriminatory Black Codes in Southern states, which had historically been used to discriminate against Black individuals.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is another crucial component. It applies the protections of the Fifth Amendment to state governments, safeguarding individuals from the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. This clause encompasses both procedural and substantive due process, with the former focusing on the processes for restraining life, liberty, or property, and the latter on the government's justification for its actions. The Due Process Clause has been the subject of ongoing legal interpretation, with courts employing rational basis review and strict scrutiny standards to evaluate potential infringements on citizens' rights.
Manifesting Mindsets: Can We Change Others with the Law of Attraction?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Equal Protection Clause
When determining whether a law or policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, courts will apply one of three scrutiny tests: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied in cases involving discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, immigration status, or wedlock status at birth. The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in treating one group differently from another and that the law or action is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal through the "least restrictive means" possible.
On the other hand, rational basis scrutiny is applied in most cases when courts are deciding whether discrimination is unlawful. Under this test, the government must demonstrate a rational basis for treating some people differently, meaning the discriminatory act must be "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." For example, a law prohibiting blind people from driving is justified on safety grounds, even though it discriminates against the blind.
Lawyers as Witnesses: Case Law Complexities
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Discrimination against racial, ethnic, or religious groups
Despite these protections, racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination still occurs in various forms. For example, employers may use automated tools to review job applications, and these tools may evaluate resumes based on information that directly correlates with the applicant's race. In one instance, a resume screening tool found that being named "Jared" and playing high school lacrosse were key to being a successful employee. Such discrimination is prohibited by federal law, which states that a person cannot be denied a job, promotion, or raise based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin.
Additionally, an employer's policies may cause unjustified and disproportionate harm to people of a particular race, ethnicity, or national origin. For example, refusing to hire anyone with a criminal record disproportionately affects Black and Latine job applicants, who are more likely to have criminal records due to the current criminal legal system. Such a policy would constitute illegal "disparate impact" discrimination. If the policy were driven by a desire to exclude people of color with criminal records, it would also be considered illegal intentional racial discrimination.
To address these issues, federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination in various contexts. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, job training, and other aspects of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Title VI of the same act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance, while Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.
Furthermore, the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 prohibits registered apprenticeship programs from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. This law is enforced by the Office of Apprenticeship. To ensure compliance, employers covered by non-discrimination laws are required to post an "Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law" notice prominently on their premises.
Animals and the Law: Who's Responsible?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Discrimination against young people
Young people often face negative stereotypes and biases due to their generational differences from older adults. They may be perceived as coddled, radically progressive, disrespectful, or inexperienced. These unfavorable stereotypes can lead to discrimination in various sectors, including employment, education, and healthcare. For example, younger workers are more likely to experience job loss during economic recessions, and they may face barriers to career advancement or be overlooked for leadership positions due to age-based prejudices.
In the realm of education, young people may encounter age-based discrimination in the form of age requirements for admission to certain schools or programs. Additionally, there is limited research on the interventions to reduce or eliminate ageism against younger individuals, which can hinder their access to equal opportunities and resources.
The impact of discrimination against young people can also extend to their mental health and well-being. Studies have shown that experiencing age discrimination simultaneously with discrimination based on skin color, race, or class is associated with a higher occurrence of common mental disorders. It is crucial to address these issues to ensure the wellness of current and future generations of young adults.
To combat discrimination against young people, it is essential to recognize the different dimensions of age and how they intersect with other identities such as race, ethnicity, or gender. By understanding the multifaceted nature of age and its interplay with other factors, we can better identify and address biases and stereotypes that contribute to youth-directed ageism.
Accessing Legal Aid for Family Law: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Gender-based discrimination
Laws that treat one group of people differently from others are not always unconstitutional. Discrimination based on gender occurs when there is a distinction, exclusion, or restriction that impairs or nullifies the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Direct discrimination occurs when a difference in treatment relies directly on distinctions based on characteristics of an individual related to their sex and gender, which cannot be justified on objective and reasonable grounds. For example, laws excluding women from serving as judges constitute direct discrimination.
Indirect discrimination occurs when a law, policy, or practice appears to be neutral but disproportionately negatively affects one gender when implemented. In the United States, the Equal Protection Clause gives rise to a cause of action on behalf of a "class of one" when the plaintiff alleges they have been intentionally treated differently without a rational basis for such treatment. Parties seeking to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate a persuasive justification that does not rely on overly broad generalizations about the talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.
In the context of employment, about four-in-ten working women in the United States report experiencing gender discrimination at work. Women with higher family incomes are more likely to have experienced gender-based discrimination, with 30% earning less than a man in comparable work. Black women face additional challenges, with 53% reporting experiencing at least one type of gender discrimination at work, and 22% reporting being passed over for important assignments due to their gender.
Historically, women in the United States lacked the right to vote until 1920, and even after gaining the right to vote, African American men and women faced significant barriers to voting due to discriminatory laws.
State vs Federal Law: Who Wins?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, laws can treat people differently, but not on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was added in 1868 after the Civil War. It states that no state can deny any person "the equal protection of the laws."
The rational basis test is the most common standard applied by courts to determine whether a law that treats people differently is constitutional. A law passes this test if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Strict scrutiny is the toughest standard of review applied by courts. It is used when a law involves a "suspect classification," such as race, or affects fundamental rights. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Laws that impose age restrictions on activities such as smoking, drinking alcohol, or driving are examples of laws that treat people differently based on age. Other examples include laws that prohibit blind people from driving or laws that require minimum test scores or GPAs for admission to certain public colleges and universities.
![Hyperdrama[2 LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71iFNbV3vtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
