Historical Context and Original Intent

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause emerged from the aftermath of the Civil War. It was primarily intended to protect newly freed African Americans in the South from discriminatory state actions. Congressman John A. Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard were key figures in including these protections.

The framers aimed to solidify the gains of emancipation within the Constitution, safeguarding civil rights against state abuses. However, the phrase "equal protection" was subject to various interpretations even among its supporters. It's unclear whether they envisioned a broad standard applying to various classifications or focused solely on racial equality.

Early Court interpretations leaned towards racial protection, but the language wasn't explicitly racial. Over time, it became a universal protector against unequally applied legislation.

Evolution of Equal Protection Interpretation

• Initial focus: Racial protection
• Early testing ground: Economic regulation
• Non-suspect classifications: Rational basis review
• Target: State governments, not private individuals

Cases like Reitman v. Mulkey highlighted the nuance of state involvement, striking down a state constitutional amendment encouraging discrimination in private housing.

Not all classifications by law amounted to unequal protection. Legislatures retained broad leeway in differentiating among people and scenarios. Only classifications without rational basis or rooted in invidious discrimination were found unconstitutional.

The evolution of the Equal Protection Clause reflects the balance between federal oversight and states' autonomy, from its origins to its broad application today.

Judicial Interpretation and Evolution

The Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 initially limited the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, ruling that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected only rights associated with national citizenship.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) transformed the understanding of the Equal Protection Clause, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine and mandating desegregation of public schools. This ruling extended protections against various forms of state-imposed racial segregation.

Key Cases in Equal Protection Evolution:

• Reed v. Reed (1971): First case to strike down gender discrimination
• United States v. Virginia (1996): Refined "intermediate scrutiny" for gender-based distinctions
• Romer v. Evans (1996): Extended protection to sexual orientation
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Guaranteed same-sex marriage rights

These cases demonstrate the evolving interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause by the Supreme Court, shaping it into a tool for ensuring justice and equality under the law. How might future interpretations further expand or refine the application of this clause?

State Action Doctrine

The state action doctrine limits the Equal Protection Clause's applicability to discriminatory actions by governmental entities, not private individuals or organizations. This limitation stems from the Amendment's text, which explicitly restricts its prohibitions to state actions.

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

The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 established that the Fourteenth Amendment does not empower Congress to regulate private discrimination. This decision emphasized that purely private acts of discrimination fall outside the scope of equal protection.

Key Cases Defining State Action:

• Shelley v. Kraemer (1948): Court enforcement of private covenants constitutes state action
• Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961): Private business in public facility engaged in state action
• Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974): Private utility company's actions not state action despite regulation
• Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982): Private school's employment decisions remain private despite public funding
• Reitman v. Mulkey (1967): State constitutional amendment encouraging private discrimination invalid

The state action doctrine maintains a balance between federal oversight and state sovereignty. It prevents states from circumventing constitutional guarantees by delegating traditionally public functions to private entities. How might future cases further refine the boundaries of state involvement in private conduct?

Standards of Review

Courts apply three main tiers of scrutiny in Equal Protection cases:

1. Rational basis review
2. Intermediate scrutiny
3. Strict scrutiny

Each standard has distinct criteria for different types of classifications.

Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is the most lenient standard. Courts assess whether a law or government action is "rationally related" to a legitimate state interest. This approach assumes the validity of legislative classifications, requiring only a reasonable connection between the law's purpose and the classification it addresses.

Examples:

• Railway Express Agency v. New York (1949): Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance prohibiting advertising on vehicles unless it pertained to the vehicle's owner, citing traffic safety as a legitimate public interest.
• Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. (1955): Court sustained an Oklahoma law restricting optician practices.

Intermediate Scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny applies primarily to classifications involving gender and legitimacy. This standard requires that the law or action be "substantially related" to an "important government interest." It demands a closer fit between means and ends compared to rational basis review.

Examples:

• Craig v. Boren (1976): Court struck down an Oklahoma statute differentiating drinking ages based on gender.
• Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982): Court invalidated a state policy barring men from enrolling in a publicly-funded nursing school.

Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standard, applied primarily to classifications based on race, national origin, and those infringing upon fundamental rights. The government must demonstrate that the classification is "narrowly tailored" to achieve a "compelling state interest."

Examples:

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Dismantled state-sponsored racial segregation in public schools.
• Loving v. Virginia (1967): Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013, 2016): Addressed affirmative action admissions policies.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

These standards of review illustrate the judicial processes safeguarding equal protection under the law. They reflect careful adjustments designed to balance governmental interests with the prevention of arbitrary or discriminatory practices.

Modern Applications and Controversies

Current applications of the Equal Protection Clause involve three primary areas:

1. Affirmative action
2. LGBTQ+ rights
3. Immigration

These areas highlight the evolving nature of equal protection and underscore the judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional principles in a changing society.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action remains a complex issue. Key cases include:

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): Established that while race could be one factor in university admissions, strict racial quotas were unconstitutional.
• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Reaffirmed that race could be considered to achieve a diverse educational environment.
• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016): Emphasized the need for ongoing review to ensure no viable race-neutral alternatives exist.

LGBTQ+ Rights

LGBTQ+ rights have seen significant developments:

• Romer v. Evans (1996): Struck down a Colorado amendment preventing the protection of LGBTQ+ individuals.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Affirmed that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): Sparked debates on religious liberties versus anti-discrimination protections.

Immigration

Immigration presents another challenge:

• Plyler v. Doe (1982): Demonstrated that states could not deny free public education to undocumented children.
• Trump v. Hawaii (2018): Upheld a travel ban affecting predominantly Muslim countries, raising questions about the extent of executive power and its intersection with equal protection principles.

"As courts consider these tensions, they do so with the understanding that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the present context."

These contemporary issues illustrate the ongoing struggle to balance various interests within the constitutional framework. Future legal battles will likely continue to test the clause's boundaries, driven by societal shifts and evolving norms.

The ongoing dialogue between past precedent and current adjudication underscores the Constitution's ability to address the needs of contemporary society while upholding its foundational principles.