Also known as: equal protection claim · equal protection
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional claim asserting that government action violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by treating similarly situated persons differently without adequate justification. The claim requires identification of a classification that triggers the appropriate level of scrutiny and a showing that the classification fails that scrutiny.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Edgar Evers, a nonminority buyer, purchased an electric vehicle and received only the basic state rebate. Buyers identifying as members of specified racial minority groups received a substantially higher rebate regardless of income or neighborhood conditions. Evers sued, alleging that the explicit racial classification in the benefit program violated equal protection.
Esther Eisenberg, a criminal defendant, observed that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove all prospective jurors of her race. She made a prima facie showing of racial motivation. The burden then shifted to the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for each strike.
Eugene Ellsworth owned a single parcel that the city rezoned to permit a high-density use inconsistent with the surrounding area and comprehensive plan. Neighboring owners challenged the rezoning as arbitrary and a denial of equal protection because it conferred a special benefit on one landowner without a legitimate public purpose.
Enzo Eastwood, an unmarried man, was denied access to contraceptives under a state statute that permitted distribution only to married couples. He challenged the law, arguing that the marital-status classification infringed the individual right of privacy protected by equal protection.
Eduardo Enriquez, a Black man, and his white fiancée were denied a marriage license under a state statute prohibiting interracial marriage. They sued, contending that the racial classification lacked any legitimate purpose independent of invidious discrimination and infringed the fundamental right to marry.
Eric Espinoza moved to a new state and applied for welfare benefits. The state imposed a one-year durational residency requirement before full benefits would be available. Espinoza challenged the requirement as violating equal protection by deterring interstate migration of indigent persons.
Racial classifications in government benefit programs are subject to strict scrutiny. The state must demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. A program that awards benefits solely on race without regard to income or other neutral criteria presumptively fails this standard.
Gender classifications receive intermediate scrutiny and must substantially advance an important governmental interest. A statute granting husbands but not wives unilateral authority over jointly owned property fails this test when the distinction rests only on administrative convenience.
…speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment…
…Negroes, was allowed to raise the issue that enforcement of the covenant violated the rights of prospective Negro purchasers to equal protection, although no Negro was a party to the suit. And see Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U. S. 390; Adler v. Board of Education , 342 U. S. 485; NAACP v. Alabama , 357 U. S. 449; NAACP v. Button ,…
…of a delinquency proceeding. Finally, we have no occasion to consider appellant's argument that § 744 (b) is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as well as a denial of due process. [^maj-2]: (Majority n. 2) The ruling appears in the following portion of the hearing transcript: Counsel: "Your Honor is making a finding by…
…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. . . . . . "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The parties disagree over whether RFRA…
…First Amendment claim of religious discrimination. For while we have allowed a Bivens action to redress a violation of the equal protection
State laws banning interracial marriage violate equal protection because racial classifications are subject to the most rigid scrutiny and cannot be upheld absent a legitimate purpose independent of invidious discrimination. The freedom to marry a person of another race resides with the individual.
No. Durational residency requirements for welfare benefits violate equal protection by deterring the migration of indigent persons. Protecting the state treasury by discouraging entry of those who might need assistance is not a permissible governmental objective.