Equal Protection vs. Due Process: Your Shield Against Government Discrimination

Last updated 4 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

At the heart of American civil rights are two powerful constitutional safeguards: the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses. Found in the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, these provisions protect individuals from unfair or discriminatory government actions.

These clauses aren’t abstract legal concepts—they have real impacts on daily life. They can protect you from discriminatory laws, ensure fair treatment when the government affects your rights, and safeguard essential liberties.

Understanding Your Constitutional Shields

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that government treat similarly situated people in a similar manner, preventing unjust distinctions between groups.

The Due Process Clauses, found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guarantee that government cannot deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law“—ensuring fair procedures and preventing arbitrary actions.

The Equal Protection Clause

“Nor Deny to Any Person… the Equal Protection of the Laws”

The Equal Protection Clause appears in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “…nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This command applies directly to state and local governments.

While the Fourteenth Amendment targets states, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to impose similar equal protection obligations on the federal government. This concept, called “reverse incorporation,” ensures a national standard of equal protection. In Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), the Court reasoned it would be “unthinkable” for the federal government to discriminate in ways prohibited to states.

Original Intent: Post-Civil War Rights

The Fourteenth Amendment, including the Equal Protection Clause, passed after the Civil War. Its primary purpose was to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved African Americans and ensure Southern states didn’t deny them basic citizenship protections. The amendment’s sponsors aimed to provide constitutional backing for civil rights legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Despite the clause’s clear original focus, its broad language (“any person”) has allowed its protections to extend over time to cover discrimination based on gender, national origin, and non-citizenship. This evolution shows that constitutional principles adapt to societal changes and deeper understanding of what “equal protection” truly demands.

Who is Protected?

The Equal Protection Clause protects “any person within [a state’s] jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court has interpreted “person” broadly to include:

• All natural persons (human beings), regardless of race, color, or nationality. This means non-citizens are also entitled to equal protection.
• Corporations, in certain contexts. The Court first indicated corporations could invoke the clause in the Granger Cases (1877) and explicitly affirmed it in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886).

This broad definition ensures that many individuals and entities can seek protection from discriminatory state actions.

The “State Action” Doctrine

A crucial limitation on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is the “state action” doctrine. This doctrine means these clauses generally only apply to actions taken by the government (federal, state, or local) or by individuals acting with significant government involvement or authority. They don’t typically prohibit discrimination by purely private individuals or businesses.

For example, if a public school (a state actor) denies admission to students based on race, that would clearly trigger Equal Protection scrutiny. However, if a private club with no government ties refuses membership based on race, the Fourteenth Amendment itself might not apply directly.

This limitation is significant. While the Constitution is powerful against government discrimination, its silence on purely private discrimination created a need for Congress to act. Congress has passed various civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to prohibit discrimination by private entities in areas like employment, public accommodations, and housing.

How Courts Review Equal Protection Claims

When a law or government action is challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause, courts use a framework of tiered scrutiny to evaluate it. The level of scrutiny depends on the type of classification the government is making and the nature of the rights affected.

There are three main levels of scrutiny:

Rational Basis Review

This is the default and most lenient standard of review. It applies to classifications that don’t involve “suspect” categories (like race) or “quasi-suspect” categories (like gender) and don’t infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights. This standard is often used for laws related to social and economic policy.

The Test: The government must show that the law or action is “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.” Courts are generally very deferential under this standard, and the law is presumed valid. The person challenging the law must prove it’s irrational.

Example: A law requiring individuals to be 16 years old to obtain a driver’s license would likely be reviewed under rational basis. The legitimate government interest is public safety, and an age requirement is generally seen as a rational way to promote that interest.

Intermediate Scrutiny

This is a middle-tier level of review, more demanding than rational basis but less stringent than strict scrutiny. This standard is most notably applied to classifications based on gender and sometimes to classifications based on legitimacy (whether a child’s parents were married). These are often called “quasi-suspect classifications.”

The Test: The government must demonstrate that the classification serves an “important government interest” and that the means used are “substantially related” to achieving that interest. In United States v. Virginia (1996), the Supreme Court stated that the justification for a gender-based classification must be “exceedingly persuasive” and must not rely on “overly broad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

Example: In Craig v. Boren (1976), an Oklahoma law allowed women to buy 3.2% beer at age 18 but prohibited men from doing so until age 21. The Supreme Court struck down the law using intermediate scrutiny, finding that while traffic safety was an important government interest, the gender-based distinction wasn’t substantially related to achieving that goal.

Strict Scrutiny

This is the highest and most rigorous level of judicial review. Laws subjected to strict scrutiny are very rarely upheld; they are presumed unconstitutional.

This standard is triggered by classifications based on race, ethnicity, and national origin (often called “suspect classifications” because they’ve historically been used to discriminate). It also applies when a law infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights (such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, or the right to travel interstate).

The Test: The government must prove that the law or action is “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling government interest.” “Narrowly tailored” means the law must be the least restrictive or least discriminatory means to achieve that interest, and there must be no other way to accomplish the objective.

Example: State-sponsored racial segregation in public schools, as challenged in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), failed strict scrutiny because separating students by race was not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest and was found to be inherently unequal.

The existence of these different levels of scrutiny shows that courts don’t view all forms of government classification or discrimination equally. The framework itself is a dynamic legal construct that has evolved through decades of Supreme Court cases, reflecting changing societal understandings of fairness and equality.

Table 1: Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Unpacking the Due Process Clauses

The concept of “due process of law” is a bedrock principle of the American legal system, ensuring that the government acts fairly and respects individual rights.

Two Clauses, Broad Protections

The U.S. Constitution contains two Due Process Clauses:

• The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This clause applies to actions taken by the federal government.
• The Fourteenth Amendment contains nearly identical language: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” This clause applies to actions taken by state and local governments.

Generally, “due process of law” means that the government must act fairly and in accordance with established rules, and it cannot exercise its power arbitrarily. The Supreme Court has generally interpreted the due process limitations on states to be the same as those on the federal government.

Historical Lineage

The idea of due process traces back over 800 years to Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta (1215), in which King John of England promised that “[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed…except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The phrase “due process of law” first appeared in an English statute in 1354, essentially as a restatement of the “law of the land” principle from Magna Carta. The American founders were heavily influenced by this English legal tradition, particularly by the writings of jurist Sir Edward Coke, who equated “by the law of the land” with “due process of law.” While the initial emphasis was on fair procedures, early American constitutional thought also embraced the notion that “due process” placed substantive limits on what the government could do, preventing arbitrary deprivations of fundamental rights.

Procedural Due Process: Ensuring Fair Process

Procedural due process concerns the methods the government uses when it seeks to deprive an individual of a protected interest. It asks: Has the government followed fair procedures?

Core Principle: If the government intends to deprive a person of a protected “life, liberty, or property” interest, it must first provide certain procedural safeguards. This ensures that decisions are made fairly and accurately, reducing the risk of erroneous or arbitrary deprivations.

Key Elements: Notice and an Opportunity to Be Heard:

• Notice: Individuals must receive adequate and timely notice of what the government plans to do and why. This notice should be clear enough to allow the person to understand the charges or basis for the action and to prepare a defense.
• Opportunity to Be Heard: Individuals must have a meaningful chance to present their side of the story, offer evidence, and challenge the government’s claims before a neutral decision-maker. The formality of this “hearing” can vary depending on the situation, but it must be a genuine opportunity to be heard.

What are “Life, Liberty, or Property” Interests?

• “Life” can refer to situations involving capital punishment.
• “Liberty” is a broad concept. It certainly includes freedom from physical restraint (like imprisonment), but the Supreme Court has recognized that it also encompasses other important individual freedoms, such as the right to contract, to engage in common occupations, to marry, and to direct the upbringing of one’s children.
• “Property” includes more than just tangible assets like land or money. It can also include certain government benefits or “entitlements” once an individual has a legitimate claim to them. Examples include welfare benefits (as in Goldberg v. Kelly), a driver’s license, and, in some circumstances, continued public employment. The recognition of these “new property” interests significantly broadens the scope of procedural due process protections.

Flexibility of Due Process: The specific procedures required by due process aren’t fixed; they’re flexible and depend on the circumstances. In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), the Supreme Court established a three-factor balancing test to determine what kind of process is “due” in a particular situation:

1. The private interest at stake: How important is the interest being affected by the government action?
2. The risk of an erroneous deprivation: How likely is it that the current procedures will lead to a mistake, and what is the probable value of adding more or different procedural safeguards?
3. The government’s interest: What are the government’s concerns, including the administrative and financial burdens that additional procedures would entail?

Void for Vagueness Doctrine: A law can violate procedural due process if it is “void for vagueness.” This means the law is written in language so unclear or ambiguous that ordinary people cannot understand what conduct is prohibited. Such laws fail to provide fair notice and can lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.

Substantive Due Process: Protecting Fundamental Rights

Substantive due process concerns the content or substance of the law itself, rather than the procedures used to enforce it. It asks: Does the government have a good enough reason to interfere with certain fundamental rights, or is the law itself arbitrary or irrational?

Core Principle: Substantive due process holds that some rights are so fundamental to liberty that the government cannot infringe upon them, even if it follows fair procedures. It acts as a limitation on what the government can regulate.

Identifying Fundamental Rights: These are rights considered “deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society.” Many fundamental rights are explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights (like freedom of speech or religion). However, the Supreme Court has also recognized certain unenumerated rights (rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution) as being protected by the “liberty” component of the Due Process Clauses. Examples of such judicially recognized fundamental rights include:

• The right to privacy, which encompasses rights related to marriage, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and bodily integrity.
• The right to marry.
• The right to direct the upbringing and education of one’s children.
• The right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.

The concept of “liberty” protected by substantive due process is dynamic and has evolved through Supreme Court interpretation, reflecting changing societal values regarding personal autonomy. This evolution, however, is also a source of significant debate.

Scrutiny for Fundamental Rights: When a government law or action infringes upon a fundamental right, courts typically apply strict scrutiny. This means the government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. If no fundamental right is involved, the law is usually reviewed under the much more deferential rational basis test.

Controversy: Substantive due process has historically been one of the most controversial areas of constitutional law. Critics sometimes argue that it allows judges to substitute their own policy preferences for those of elected legislatures, particularly when recognizing unenumerated rights. The “Lochner era” (early 20th century), when the Court frequently struck down economic regulations based on a “liberty of contract” theory, is often cited as an example of judicial overreach. The debate over abortion rights, stemming from Roe v. Wade (1973) and its subsequent overruling by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), also centers heavily on substantive due process principles.

The dual nature of due process—protecting both fair procedures and fundamental substantive rights—provides a broad shield against arbitrary or oppressive government action, including actions that may be discriminatory.

The Doctrine of Incorporation

One of the most significant developments in American constitutional law related to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is the doctrine of incorporation.

Original Understanding: When the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was ratified in 1791, it was understood to apply only as a limit on the powers of the federal government, not on state governments. States had their own constitutions and bills of rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Role: After the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court began a gradual process known as “selective incorporation.” Through this process, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to make most of the protections found in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

“Fundamental to Ordered Liberty”: The Court doesn’t automatically apply every provision of the Bill of Rights to the states. Instead, it “incorporates” those rights that are deemed “fundamental to the American scheme of justice” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” This means the right must be essential for a fair and just system.

Examples of Incorporated Rights: Most of the familiar rights that people associate with the Constitution now apply to both federal and state governments because of incorporation. These include:

• First Amendment rights (freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly).
• Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (the “right to remain silent”) and protection against double jeopardy.
• Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy and public trial, counsel, and to confront witnesses.
• Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments.

Some provisions of the Bill of Rights have not been fully incorporated against the states, such as the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of a grand jury indictment for serious federal crimes.

Significance for Discrimination: The incorporation doctrine is profoundly important because it creates a national standard for many fundamental rights. It ensures that state and local governments cannot violate these core protections, many of which are crucial tools in challenging discriminatory government actions. This unifying force for rights is critical in ensuring that all Americans, regardless of which state they live in, enjoy a baseline level of constitutional protection.

Equal Protection vs. Due Process in Discrimination Cases

While both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses protect individuals from improper government action, they address different aspects of governmental conduct and ask different questions. However, their protections can also overlap, particularly in cases involving discrimination by the federal government or when discriminatory laws infringe upon fundamental rights.

Core Distinction: Different Questions, Different Focus

The primary distinction lies in the fundamental question each clause poses:

Equal Protection Clause: This clause is primarily concerned with comparative treatment. It asks whether the government is treating similarly situated people differently without an adequate justification, or if a law, either on its face or in its application, creates discriminatory classifications. The focus is on whether a distinction drawn by the government between groups of people is permissible. If a law treats Group A differently from Group B, the Equal Protection Clause examines whether the government has a sufficiently strong reason for that difference, using the tiered scrutiny framework.

Due Process Clauses:

• Procedural Due Process: This aspect focuses on the fairness of the procedures the government uses when it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. It asks: Was the individual given adequate notice of the government’s intended action and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decision-maker? The concern here is the process afforded to the individual, regardless of whether others are treated similarly.
• Substantive Due Process: This aspect looks at the substance of the law itself. It asks whether the government has a legitimate and sufficient reason to interfere with a fundamental right, or whether a law is inherently arbitrary or irrational, even if it is applied “equally” to everyone it affects and with fair procedures. The focus is on whether the government can take a certain action at all, or regulate a certain area of life.

A law could, for instance, be applied with perfect procedural fairness (satisfying procedural due process) and apply to everyone it covers without making distinctions between groups (not obviously violating equal protection on its face). However, that same law could still violate substantive due process if it infringes upon a fundamental right without a compelling justification. Conversely, a law might not infringe a fundamental right (thus not raising a substantive due process issue) but could still violate equal protection if it irrationally or unfairly treats one group less favorably than another.

The Overlap: When Unjustifiable Discrimination Violates Due Process

Despite their distinct focuses, the protections of these clauses can overlap. The most significant area of overlap concerning discrimination arises from the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. As mentioned earlier, the Fifth Amendment, which applies to the federal government, does not contain an explicit Equal Protection Clause like the Fourteenth Amendment (which applies to states). However, the Supreme Court has firmly established that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes an “equal protection component.”

The Court has stated that “discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.” This means that while the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is the “more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness” when dealing with state actions, grossly arbitrary or invidious discrimination by the federal government can also be challenged as a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment.

In practice, the Supreme Court has held that the standards for analyzing discrimination claims are essentially the same whether the claim is brought against a state government under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or against the federal government under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This “reverse incorporation” of equal protection principles into the Fifth Amendment ensures that the federal government is held to the same fundamental standards of non-discrimination as the states.

The phrasing “so unjustifiable” in early discussions of this overlap suggests a high threshold for a purely due process-based discrimination claim (if not relying on the now-established equal protection component). It implies that the discrimination must reach a level of profound arbitrariness or unfairness that fundamentally offends due process ideals.

Scenarios: When to Use Which Clause

Understanding when a discrimination claim might primarily rely on the Equal Protection Clause versus the Due Process Clause (or both) can depend on the specific facts of the situation.

Use Equal Protection When:

• The central complaint is that a law or government policy explicitly treats one group of people differently from another similar group. For example, a law setting different legal ages for men and women to purchase alcohol (Craig v. Boren).
• A facially neutral law (one that doesn’t mention specific groups) is applied in a discriminatory manner against a particular group. For example, a business licensing ordinance that is only enforced to deny licenses to individuals of a specific ethnicity (Yick Wo v. Hopkins).
• A law or policy has a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class (e.g., based on race or gender), AND there is evidence of discriminatory purpose or intent behind the law or its application (Washington v. Davis).

Use Due Process (Procedural) When:

• The government is attempting to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property without providing adequate notice or a fair hearing. Examples include terminating welfare benefits without a pre-termination hearing (Goldberg v. Kelly), or deporting a U.S. resident who claims citizenship without a hearing on that claim. The issue here is the fairness of the process, even if the underlying rule being enforced is not itself discriminatory.
• A law is so vague that ordinary people cannot understand what conduct is prohibited, leading to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

Use Due Process (Substantive) When:

• A law infringes upon a fundamental right (such as the right to marry, freedom of speech, or the right to privacy), even if the law applies to everyone equally and fair procedures are followed. For example, a law banning interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia) or same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges) was challenged under both Equal Protection (for the discriminatory classification) and Substantive Due Process (for infringing the fundamental right to marry).
• A law is deemed utterly arbitrary and serves no legitimate governmental purpose, even if it doesn’t target a specific group for different treatment.

Claims Can Involve Both: It’s important to recognize that a single government action can sometimes violate both Equal Protection and Due Process principles. For instance, if a public employee is fired based on her race (an Equal Protection violation) without being given any notice or chance to contest the firing (a Procedural Due Process violation), she might have valid claims under both clauses.

Table 2: Equal Protection vs. Due Process in Discrimination Cases at a Glance

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting and applying the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Landmark cases demonstrate how these constitutional principles have been used to combat various forms of government discrimination and protect fundamental rights.

Racial Discrimination

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Rise of “Separate but Equal”

Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black, was arrested for sitting in a “whites-only” railroad car in Louisiana, violating the state’s Separate Car Act. The Supreme Court upheld the Louisiana law, establishing the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine. The Court found that state-mandated racial segregation did not inherently imply the inferiority of African Americans and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision institutionalized racial segregation across the American South for over half a century, effectively sanctioning state-sponsored discrimination. It demonstrated a restrictive interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, applying a very deferential standard to racial classifications and highlighting how judicial interpretation can undermine the original aims of a constitutional provision.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): Overturning Segregation in Public Schools

This landmark case consolidated several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of racial segregation in public schools. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that state-sponsored segregation in public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, famously stating that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” This decision explicitly overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in the context of public education.

Brown v. Board was a watershed moment for the American Civil Rights Movement and a monumental victory for the Equal Protection Clause. It signaled a fundamental shift towards a more robust interpretation of equality, particularly concerning race, and provided the legal foundation for dismantling de jure (by law) segregation in other areas of public life. It implicitly applied a stricter form of scrutiny to racial classifications in education.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954): Federal Desegregation

Decided on the same day as Brown, Bolling addressed racial segregation in the public schools of Washington, D.C. Because the District of Columbia is a federal territory, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause did not directly apply. The Supreme Court held that racial segregation in D.C. schools violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court reasoned that while the Fifth Amendment does not contain an explicit equal protection clause, “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive,” and that “discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”

This case established the principle of “reverse incorporation,” ensuring that the federal government is held to a standard of equal protection similar to that imposed on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. It demonstrated the adaptability of the Due Process Clause to address egregious discrimination even in the absence of an explicit equal protection guarantee.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): Discriminatory Application of a Neutral Law

A San Francisco city ordinance required all laundries operating in wooden buildings to obtain a permit from the Board of Supervisors. While the ordinance appeared neutral on its face, evidence showed it was enforced in a starkly discriminatory manner: permits were denied to all Chinese applicants (around 200), while nearly all non-Chinese applicants (around 80, with only one exception) were granted permits. Yick Wo, a Chinese immigrant who had operated his laundry for years, was imprisoned for continuing to operate without a permit. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that this discriminatory application of the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause, even though the law itself was not explicitly discriminatory.

Yick Wo is a foundational case establishing that the Equal Protection Clause protects against not only laws that are discriminatory on their face but also facially neutral laws that are administered with an “evil eye and an unequal hand.” It affirmed that the clause protects “all persons” within a state’s jurisdiction, including non-citizens.

Loving v. Virginia (1967): Marriage as a Fundamental Right

Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., and returned to their home state of Virginia, where their marriage was a felony under Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia’s law, holding that it violated both the Equal Protection Clause (as an invidious racial classification) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (by infringing upon the fundamental right to marry).

This was a powerful affirmation of racial equality in the context of fundamental personal relationships. It also stands as a key substantive due process case, recognizing marriage as a fundamental right essential to “our very existence and survival.” The case beautifully illustrates how both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses can work in tandem to challenge laws rooted in discrimination that also infringe upon fundamental liberties.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023): Affirmative Action

This case (consolidated with a similar case against the University of North Carolina) challenged the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard University and UNC. The Supreme Court held that these admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that the programs lacked sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employed race in a negative manner, involved racial stereotyping, and lacked meaningful end points. Therefore, the programs could not survive the rigorous strict scrutiny standard applied to racial classifications.

This decision marked a significant shift in the Supreme Court’s approach to affirmative action in higher education, making it much more difficult for universities to consider race as a factor in admissions. It emphasized a “color-blind” interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, where any racial classification by the government is highly suspect. This case highlights the ongoing evolution and intense debate surrounding the meaning of equal protection, particularly concerning race-conscious remedies intended to address historical disadvantages.

Gender Discrimination

The application of the Equal Protection Clause to gender discrimination evolved later than its application to racial discrimination but has become a critical area of constitutional law.

Reed v. Reed (1971): First Invalidation of Gender Discrimination under EPC

An Idaho statute specified that “males must be preferred to females” when appointing administrators of an estate if both applicants were otherwise equally qualified. Sally Reed challenged this law after her estranged husband was appointed administrator of their deceased son’s estate solely because of this gender preference. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Idaho law, holding for the first time that a classification based on sex violated the Equal Protection Clause. While the Court purported to apply a rational basis standard of review, it found that giving a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, was “the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause.”

Reed v. Reed was a groundbreaking case that marked the beginning of modern sex discrimination jurisprudence under the Equal Protection Clause. Although it used rational basis language, its less deferential approach to gender classifications signaled a new willingness by the Court to scrutinize laws that treated men and women differently.

Craig v. Boren (1976): Establishing Intermediate Scrutiny

An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 but allowed females to purchase it at age 18. The state argued this distinction was justified by traffic safety concerns, citing statistics indicating young men were more likely to be involved in alcohol-related driving incidents. The Supreme Court struck down the law, formally establishing “intermediate scrutiny” as the standard for gender-based classifications. Under this standard, the Court held that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. The Court found Oklahoma’s statistical evidence insufficient to meet this standard.

This case solidified a heightened standard of review for gender discrimination, requiring more than just a rational basis but less than strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny became the prevailing standard for analyzing such claims, providing a more robust tool for challenging gender-based laws.

United States v. Virginia (VMI Case) (1996): “Exceedingly Persuasive Justification”

The United States sued Virginia over the Virginia Military Institute’s (VMI) long-standing male-only admissions policy. VMI was the only single-sex public institution of higher learning in Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that VMI’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, stated that parties seeking to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for that action. This justification “must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation,” and “must not rely on overly broad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

The VMI case further strengthened the intermediate scrutiny standard for gender classifications, arguably making it more rigorous. The “exceedingly persuasive justification” language emphasized the skepticism with which courts should view gender-based distinctions and underscored the need to reject gender stereotypes as justifications for differential treatment by the government.

Intent vs. Impact in Discrimination Claims

A critical issue in discrimination law is whether a law that is neutral on its face but has a disproportionate negative effect on a particular group violates the Constitution.

Washington v. Davis (1976): Discriminatory Purpose Required for EPC Violation

Two Black applicants for positions in the Washington, D.C. police department challenged a written personnel test (Test 21) which a higher percentage of Black applicants failed compared to white applicants. They argued this disproportionate impact violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (which contains an equal protection component applicable to the federal government). The Supreme Court held that a facially neutral law or official act that has a racially disproportionate impact does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause (or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) unless there is proof of a racially discriminatory purpose or intent behind it.

This is a crucial decision establishing that disproportionate impact alone is insufficient to prove a constitutional violation under the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs must show that the government actor intended to discriminate. This differs from some statutory discrimination claims, such as those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where proof of disparate impact can establish a prima facie case of discrimination (as seen in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.). The intent requirement makes it significantly harder to win constitutional discrimination cases based solely on statistical disparities, often shifting the legal battle to statutory claims where the burden of proof might be different.

Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979): Foreseeable Impact is Not Intent

Massachusetts had a law giving an absolute lifetime preference to veterans for state civil service positions. Because the overwhelming majority of veterans were men, this law had a severe disparate impact on the hiring and promotion opportunities for women in state government. Helen Feeney, a non-veteran, challenged the law as unconstitutional gender discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding no Equal Protection violation. The Court reasoned that although the disparate impact on women was foreseeable, the law was not enacted because of its adverse effect on women, but rather in spite of it. The state’s purpose was to reward veterans, a legitimate goal, and the preference was not a pretext for gender discrimination.

This case reinforced and clarified the Washington v. Davis intent requirement. “Discriminatory purpose,” the Court explained, “implies that the decisionmaker…selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” This means that mere awareness or foreseeability of a disproportionate impact is not enough to prove unconstitutional intent.

Fundamental Rights and Discrimination

The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses often work together when discriminatory laws also burden fundamental rights.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Same-Sex Marriage

This case consolidated several lawsuits challenging state laws that defined marriage exclusively as a union between one man and one woman, thereby denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states. The Supreme Court held that these laws violated both the Due Process Clause (by infringing the fundamental right to marry) and the Equal Protection Clause (by denying same-sex couples the constellation of benefits, rights, and responsibilities that states associate with marriage, and by demeaning their relationships).

A landmark decision for LGBTQ+ rights, Obergefell powerfully illustrates how both clauses can be invoked to strike down discriminatory laws that also affect fundamental liberties. It recognized that the right to marry is a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy protected by substantive due process and that denying this right based on sexual orientation constitutes an equal protection violation. This shows the interconnectedness of equality and liberty.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966): Poll Taxes in State Elections

Virginia imposed a $1.50 poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in state elections. The Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s poll tax as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that making the exercise of the fundamental right to vote conditional on the payment of a tax was an invidious discrimination based on wealth, which is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.

This case demonstrated the Court’s willingness to use the Equal Protection Clause to protect access to the political process from economic discrimination, especially when fundamental rights like voting are at stake. It highlighted that classifications based on wealth, while not generally “suspect” like race, can be unconstitutional if they unduly burden fundamental rights.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964): “One Person, One Vote”

This case addressed severe malapportionment in the Alabama state legislature, where legislative districts had vastly different populations, resulting in rural votes having significantly more weight than urban votes. The Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that state legislative districts be apportioned on a population basis, establishing the principle of “one person, one vote.”

A crucial voting rights decision, Reynolds v. Sims ensured that the Equal Protection Clause protects the equality of each individual’s vote in state elections. It prevents the dilution of voting power based on geographic location, affirming that “legislators represent people, not trees or acres.”

Understanding Your Protections

Government Accountability

The Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses are powerful tools for holding the government—whether federal, state, or local—accountable for its actions. They establish that the government cannot act arbitrarily, unfairly, or discriminatorily. Knowing that these protections exist empowers you to question government actions that seem unjust and to explore legal remedies if you believe your rights have been violated. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) provide valuable resources and information to help citizens understand and defend their constitutional rights.

The Importance of Intent in Constitutional Discrimination Claims

A key takeaway, particularly from cases like Washington v. Davis and Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, is that for many constitutional claims of discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause (and its Fifth Amendment counterpart), proving that the government intended to discriminate is crucial, especially if a law or policy is neutral on its face. Simply showing that a law or policy has a disproportionate negative impact on a particular group is often not enough to win a constitutional case. This is an important distinction because many federal and state statutory civil rights laws (like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination) may allow claims based on disparate impact without needing to prove discriminatory intent. This means that while the Constitution provides a fundamental floor of protection, specific statutes often offer broader avenues for challenging discrimination.

Due Process: Fairness in Procedure and Protection of Fundamental Liberties

The Due Process Clauses offer two distinct but related forms of protection:

• Procedural Due Process ensures that you have a right to be notified of government actions that could affect your “life, liberty, or property” and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before those deprivations occur. This applies to a wide range of situations, from criminal proceedings to the termination of essential government benefits, and in some cases, public employment.
• Substantive Due Process safeguards certain fundamental personal liberties from undue government interference, even if the government uses fair procedures. These include deeply personal rights related to privacy, marriage, family life, and bodily autonomy.

The Ongoing Evolution of Constitutional Protections

It is vital to understand that the interpretation of both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses is not static; it has evolved significantly over American history and continues to be shaped by new Supreme Court decisions and societal understandings. What constitutes “equal protection” or “due process” in specific contexts—such as affirmative action, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ rights, or the rights of immigrants—is often the subject of ongoing legal and public debate. Staying informed about these developments through reliable sources is important for understanding the current landscape of your constitutional rights and how they apply in an ever-changing world. This ongoing dialogue and reinterpretation underscore the living nature of the Constitution.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.