Also known as: equal protection · equal protection clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A body of judicial decisions and doctrines interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause forbids states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Courts apply varying levels of scrutiny to classifications depending on the trait involved and the right affected.
Ezra Eastman, a recently naturalized citizen, applied for a state professional license that the agency granted only to those born in the United States. The agency denied his application solely because of his naturalization status. Ezra challenged the denial in federal court, claiming the distinction violated equal protection guarantees.
During Enzo Eastwood's criminal trial, the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove all Black prospective jurors. Enzo's counsel made a record showing the pattern and asked the court to require a race-neutral explanation. The trial judge evaluated the prosecutor's responses before deciding whether purposeful discrimination had occurred.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Elysium Media owned one parcel in a residential zone. The city council rezoned only that parcel to commercial use after the company lobbied for the change. Neighboring owners sued, arguing the isolated rezoning lacked a legitimate public purpose and treated their parcels unequally.
Erika Echevarria, an unmarried adult, sought contraceptives from a licensed pharmacy. State law allowed distribution only to married persons. Erika sued, contending the marital-status distinction infringed her individual right to make decisions about procreation on equal terms with married individuals.
Edward Everett, a white resident, and Emily Ellis, a Black resident, applied for a marriage license. The state clerk refused because the couple was interracial. They sued, asserting that the racial restriction on their fundamental right to marry could not survive the strictest scrutiny.
Esme Ellington moved to the state and applied for welfare benefits the same month. The agency denied full benefits because she had not resided there for one year. Esme sued, claiming the durational requirement penalized her exercise of the right to travel and treated new residents unequally.
Racial classifications receive the most rigid scrutiny and can be upheld only if they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored. Courts have applied this standard to invalidate laws banning interracial marriage and to evaluate peremptory jury strikes based on race.
Supporting sources
Yes. The right of privacy inheres in the individual, married or single, so a statute permitting distribution to married couples but not to unmarried persons violates equal protection. The distinction cannot survive scrutiny when the underlying right affects decisions whether to bear or beget a child.
Supporting sources
A rezoning that benefits a single parcel or small area inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and without a legitimate public purpose may be invalid as arbitrary or as a denial of equal protection. The change must serve the general welfare rather than primarily benefit one landowner.
Supporting sources
Yes. Such requirements penalize the right to travel and cannot be justified by a state's interest in protecting its treasury from new residents. The Constitution guarantees interstate movement, and states may not deter migration of indigent persons through benefit restrictions.
Supporting sources
…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 Clause,…