In light of the history of the Equal Protection Clause, it is no surprise that race and national origin are suspect classifications. But the Court has also held that gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth qualify as suspect classifications.
A classification made expressly upon the basis of race triggers strict scrutiny and ordinarily results in its invalidation; similarly, a classification that facially makes a distinction on the basis of sex, or alienage, or illegitimacy triggers the level of scrutiny appropriate to it.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts in the United States use to determine the constitutionality of government action that burdens a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification (including race, religion, national origin, and alienage).
Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
Under the equal protection clauses of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, the government is required to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The doctrine of equal protection is triggered only if similarly situated parties are treated differently.
This clause serves as a fundamental principle ensuring that individuals are treated equally under the law, influencing various legal standards and societal norms regarding discrimination based on race, gender, and other characteristics.
Strict scrutiny is used when there is a potential violation of laws involving suspect classifications, which are laws that impact a class of individuals based upon race, national origin, religion, poverty, or alienage. If the law passes this review, then it is said to have held up to the strict scrutiny standard.
The concept of a protected class is distinct from suspect classification, which is part of Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence. While a protected class may overlap with a suspect classification, protected classes are explicitly protected by statute.
Then the choice between the three levels of scrutiny, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis scrutiny, is the doctrinal way of capturing the individual interest and perniciousness of the kind of government action.
What Is Not Considered a Protected Class? Groups not explicitly outlined in federal anti-discrimination laws do not fall under protected classes. For example, discrimination based on political affiliation, physical appearance, or income level is generally not protected under federal law.
Thus public school segregation based on race was found in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Mapp v.
Non-suspect classes are in essence those that do not fall under the classification of suspect classes. This is an important distinction as it acknowledges that if non-suspect classes also fall under the Equal Protection Clause, then everyone does.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment , imposes a restraint on the governmental use of suspect classification. There are four generally agreed-upon suspect classifications: race, religion, national origin, and alienage. However, this is not an exhaustive list.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.
A person's income is not always a protected characteristic when it comes to equal protection. But, the Supreme Court has identified a handful of situations where limiting access or aid based on wealth violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The equal protection clause prevents a state from enacting criminal laws that discriminate in an unreasonable and unjustified manner. The Fifth Amendment due process clause prohibits the federal government from discrimination if the discrimination is so unjustifiable that it violates due process of law.
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
The protected classes include: age, ancestry, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, genetic information, HIV/AIDS status, military status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or veteran status, or any other bases under the law.
Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases.