Also known as: anti-discrimination principle · antidiscrimination · nondiscrimination principle
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A constitutional norm that bars government action singling out disfavored groups for unique legal disabilities.
A constitutional norm that bars government action singling out disfavored groups for unique legal disabilities.
The state human rights commission orders the local scouting council to retain an openly gay assistant scoutmaster after he publicly identifies his orientation. The council refuses, explaining that retaining him would contradict its core message about moral conduct. A court holds that the order violates the council's expressive association rights.
A large professional networking club with open recruitment at job fairs denies membership to qualified women applicants. The state equal opportunity office directs the club to admit them under the public accommodations statute. The court upholds the order because the club is nonselective and the requirement leaves its advocacy unaffected.
A constitutional norm that bars erecting protectionist barriers against interstate commerce.
A motel refuses rooms to Black travelers pursuant to a policy of racial exclusion. The United States sues to enforce a federal statute prohibiting such discrimination in public accommodations. The court upholds the statute as a valid regulation of interstate commerce.
A constitutional norm that bars erecting protectionist barriers against interstate commerce.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A city zoning board denies a permit for a religious group's worship services while allowing similar secular gatherings. The group sues, claiming the denial targets its practices. The court applies strict scrutiny and invalidates the ordinance for lacking neutrality.
A public university uses race as a factor in admissions to achieve diversity. An unsuccessful white applicant challenges the policy as unconstitutional discrimination. The court requires the university to prove that its use of race is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
A city enacts an ordinance banning ritual animal sacrifice after a religious group announces plans to perform such ceremonies. The group challenges the law as targeting its practices. The court strikes down the ordinance for demonstrating hostility toward religion.
A state may apply such laws to large, nonselective civic groups when the regulation serves a compelling interest in eradicating discrimination and does not significantly impair the group's ability to advocate its views.
Compelled inclusion violates the principle when it would significantly burden an organization's sincerely held expressive message, as the state's nondiscrimination interest cannot override that autonomy.
The amendment violates equal protection by imposing a targeted political disability on a single class while leaving other groups free to pursue protections, reflecting impermissible animus that fails rational basis review.
It prohibits requirements that force local processing before interstate shipment when they function as protectionist barriers favoring in-state facilities over out-of-state competitors.
…practices or relationships," id. , at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was "born of animosity toward the class of persons affected" and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id. ,…