Equal Justice Under Law: How It Applies Today

The principle of equal justice under law is a well-known legal concept, but its application has been inconsistent and controversial. The phrase, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, is engraved on the West Pediment of the United States Supreme Court building, reflecting its significance in the American legal system. While the ideal of equal justice is aspirational, the reality falls short. The justice system often favours the rich, with access to justice determined by financial means rather than equality. This has resulted in a two-tiered justice system where wealth determines freedom, creating a cycle of poverty and hardship for those who cannot afford it.

Despite the noble intentions behind the principle, its implementation has been lacking. The legal system has struggled to provide equal justice to all, and systemic issues have led to unequal treatment, particularly for the poor and underrepresented groups. The concept of equal justice under law continues to be a topic of debate and a goal that the nation strives to achieve.

Wealth-based housing laws

One example of this is the banning of mobile homes in certain towns and cities. In 2015, the city of Newark, Arkansas passed an ordinance forbidding anyone from living in the city in a mobile home worth less than $25,000 (for single-wides) or $35,000 (for double-wides). Those whose homes are deemed unworthy must either move outside the city limits or face fines of up to $500 per day.

Exclusionary zoning laws can take many forms, such as restrictions against apartments and townhouses. While racial zoning laws that prohibited Black people from buying homes in majority-white neighbourhoods were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1917, exclusionary zoning laws based on income are still legal under current federal law.

These laws are harmful because they inhibit the Fair Housing Act's effort to combat racial bias, reduce the life chances of success for those who are excluded, and contribute to the housing affordability crisis in America. Excluding people from communities based on their socioeconomic status is unfair and betrays ugly sentiments.

In addition, exclusionary zoning laws have a disproportionately negative impact on people of colour. Due to the legacy of racist housing practices, people of colour are more likely to be affected by these laws. For example, houses appreciate less rapidly in predominantly Black neighbourhoods, which helps explain why the Black-white wealth gap is so much larger than the Black-white income gap.

To address these issues, some states and municipalities have successfully implemented more inclusive housing policies. For instance, Mount Laurel, NJ, and Montgomery County, MD, have adopted inclusionary zoning policies, which require developers to set aside a portion of new housing units to be affordable for low- and moderate-income residents.

Suspended drivers' licenses

Suspended driver's licenses disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color. In most states, a person's driver's license may be suspended without regard for their ability to pay. This can result in a cycle of unemployment and inability to pay outstanding debts, increasing exposure to the criminal justice system, and diverting resources from proven public safety policies.

In 44 states in the U.S., people's driver's licenses are suspended, even those with safe driving records, simply because they cannot afford to pay their traffic tickets or court costs. Losing a driver's license can lead to job loss and difficulty finding new employment, making it even less likely that individuals will be able to pay their debts. Impoverished individuals with suspended licenses may also struggle to fulfill daily responsibilities such as taking their children to school, caring for elderly family members, or accessing healthcare services.

The suspension of driver's licenses for unpaid court debt has been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Department of Justice, as it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution prohibits punishing a person because of their poverty. Suspending driver's licenses without considering an individual's ability to pay results in indigent defendants being penalized, while those who can afford to pay are not.

Several states, including California, Mississippi, Maine, Idaho, and the District of Columbia, have taken legislative and administrative action to reform license suspension practices. Additionally, public interest organizations have brought constitutional challenges to these schemes, with some courts sustaining these challenges and others sparking legislative or administrative reform.

The principle of equal justice under law requires that all individuals be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their economic status. The suspension of driver's licenses for unpaid debts disproportionately affects low-income individuals and communities of color, trapping them in a cycle of poverty and criminalization. Reform efforts aim to address this injustice and ensure that the legal system upholds the principle of equal justice under law.

Removing barriers to voter re-enfranchisement

The principle of equal justice under law is a cornerstone of democracy, yet an estimated 5.2 million Americans are unable to vote due to felony disenfranchisement laws. These laws, which vary from state to state, have their roots in Jim Crow-era efforts to prevent people of colour, particularly African Americans, from voting. Today, they continue to disproportionately impact the African-American community, with one in 16 African-American adults disenfranchised due to a felony conviction.

However, it is important to note that even in states with more lenient felony disenfranchisement laws, implicit disenfranchisement can still occur through intimidation, unreasonable registration or voting requirements, or discriminatory application of laws. To address this, states should review their voting registration and voting processes to ensure they are accessible, non-discriminatory, and free from unnecessary barriers.

Furthermore, the historical use of gerrymandering to minimize the impact of black re-enfranchisement should be addressed. The Supreme Court played a pivotal role in this regard during the "Reapportionment Revolution" of the early 1960s, striking down discriminatory redistricting practices and upholding the 15th Amendment. Continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that political boundaries and election structures do not disproportionately impact specific communities or marginalize minority voting blocs.

In conclusion, removing barriers to voter re-enfranchisement requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses both explicit and implicit disenfranchisement. By ensuring that voting rights are protected for all citizens, regardless of their criminal record or race, we uphold the principle of equal justice under law and strengthen the foundation of our democratic society.

Fighting abusive supervision

The principle of "equal justice under law" is a firmly embedded legal principle in the United States, engraved on the West Pediment of the Supreme Court building. While the country's justice system does not always live up to this ideal, there are organisations such as Equal Justice Under Law that work to uphold this principle.

Equal Justice Under Law is a non-profit law organisation that uses class-action impact litigation to set legal precedent and change cultural norms so that the justice system treats the rich and poor equally. They have been involved in several cases fighting abusive supervision, including:

Welchen v. Sacramento

Filed in 2016, this lawsuit challenged Sacramento's policy of charging exorbitant pretrial bail amounts without accounting for arrestees' ability to pay. Equal Justice Under Law secured a monumental victory in this case, which helped bring an end to the city's discriminatory bail system.

Ravalli County's "Jail Diversion Program"

In September 2021, Equal Justice Under Law filed a lawsuit against Ravalli County, Montana, challenging their "Jail Diversion Program". This program charged pre-trial arrestees hundreds of dollars per month in supervision and monitoring fees, even before they had been convicted of any crime. These fees created a modern-day debtors' prison, where people who couldn't afford the fees were rearrested and incarcerated solely due to their poverty. Equal Justice Under Law uncovered a bleak picture through litigation, finding that arrestees were forced to sign contracts agreeing to pay supervision fees and additional charges for drug patches, alcohol blow tests, alcohol monitoring bracelets, and more. The organisation remains confident that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution favour their position.

Harris County, Texas

In Harris County, Texas, Judge Steven Duble recalled 12,500 arrest warrants for people charged with non-jailable class C misdemeanors. He expressed serious constitutional concerns about the ability-to-pay analysis and refused to continue rubber-stamping warrants that criminalised poverty.

Anderson County, Texas

A federal class action lawsuit was filed in Anderson County, Texas, challenging the requirement for pre-trial arrestees to pay hundreds of dollars in fees, regardless of their income level. The court granted class certification to the plaintiffs, recognising the unfairness of imposing such fees on those who have not been found guilty of any crime.

Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act

The Illinois State Supreme Court upheld the 2021 Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, which abolishes cash bail and specifies procedures for imposing pretrial detention. This is a significant step towards ensuring equal justice for all, regardless of financial status.

Abusive supervision can take many forms, including hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours such as ridicule, silent treatment, reminders of past failures, and wrongful blame. It can lead to negative outcomes for employees, such as decreased job satisfaction, increased stress, and counterproductive work behaviour. To prevent abusive supervision, employers should strengthen employee commitment by reacting strongly to such behaviour and fostering a positive ethical climate with a clear code of conduct for all.

Cost-prohibitive expungements

The principle of "equal justice under law" is a well-known concept in the United States, but it has been argued that it is more of a rhetorical flourish than a reality. While the idea of equal justice is aspirational, the high cost of legal services and representation can make accessing justice cost-prohibitive for many.

In the United States, the cost of expungement varies by state and can range from a few hundred to over a thousand dollars. For individuals with limited financial resources, such costs can be out of reach, effectively denying them the opportunity to clear their records and move forward with their lives. This disproportionately affects lower-income individuals, who are often already facing challenges in finding stable housing and employment.

The high cost of expungement can be attributed to several factors, including court fees, legal representation, and other associated expenses. In some cases, individuals may need to hire an attorney to guide them through the complex legal process, adding to the overall cost. Additionally, there may be costs involved in obtaining necessary documents, such as police reports and court records, as well as potential travel expenses for court appearances.

The financial burden of expungement can create a cycle of disadvantage for those with criminal records. Without the means to afford expungement, individuals may struggle to find employment or housing, perpetuating their financial instability. This can particularly impact communities of colour, who are already overrepresented in the criminal justice system and face systemic barriers to economic advancement.

To address this issue, some states have implemented measures to reduce the cost of expungement or offer waivers for those who cannot afford it. For example, in 2019, California passed a law that eliminated filing fees for expungement petitions, recognising the financial barrier it posed for many. Additionally, some states offer expedited expungement processes for certain low-level offences, reducing the overall cost and time involved.

While these efforts are a step in the right direction, more widespread reform is needed to ensure that expungement is accessible to all who need it. By removing financial barriers, individuals can have a second chance to rebuild their lives, contributing to a more equitable and just society.

Frequently asked questions