equal protection of the laws

Constitutional guarantee embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states in relevant part that ‘no State shall . . . Deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The essential purpose of this constitutional doctrine is to ensure that the laws and the government treat all persons alike, unless there is some substantial reason why certain persons or classes of persons should be treated differently.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment states, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, became part of the U.S. Constitution in the wake of the Civil War, with the direct purpose of protecting the legal rights of African Americans recently emancipated from slavery. The equal protection clause, however, has been applied by the courts to protect the rights of all individuals under the authority of the Constitution.

Until the 1940s, the equal protection clause was rarely used by the Supreme Court to overturn state laws as unconstitutional. Since the 1950s, however, the Court has used the equal protection clause to strike down, as unconstitutional, state laws supporting racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. For example, the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was based on the equal protection clause. In Reed v. Reed (1971) the Court, for the first time, struck down a state law because it discriminated against women, in violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

See also Equality under the Constitution

Constitutional guarantee embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states in relevant part that "No State shall . . . Deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This has not been interpreted to imply that all persons in the state must be equally affected by each statute that the legislature enacts. "The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from the State the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that regard, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary." 220 U.S. 61, 78. Thus, in the general case, courts presume the validity of a state statute if there is any rational basis for it. See rational basis test. However, in certain special instances, the court will subject the law to "strict scrutiny." This test requires that the law be held to violate the equal protection clause unless the state can show a compelling interest which can only be furthered by enactment of the statute in question. 394 U.S. 618, 634. One situation that will trigger the "strict scrutiny" test occurs where the statute singles out for special treatment a class of persons that the court finds to be a suspect classification. The criteria for suspectness are that the class must be "saddled with such disabilites, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian process." 411 U.S. 1, 28. Classifications based upon the following have been held to be suspect: alienage, 403 U.S. 365, 372; nationality, 332 U.S. 633, 646; race, 379 U.S. 184, 191.

Classifications based on gender have not been labeled "suspect" but have been subjected to scrutiny less strict than strict scrutiny and more strict than the rational relationship analysis. Gender-based distinctions must "serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives." 429 U.S. 190, 197. In some instances the courts have required the statute to pass the stricter test where the law infringed upon the exercise of a "fundamental right," such as those embodied in the First Amendment. 394 U.S. 618, 634 (right to travel). Although wealth classifications have not been held to be inherently suspect the courts have struck down legislation which denied indigents free trial transcripts and hence in effect access to appellate review of their criminal convictions. "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." 351 U.S. 12, 19. Under the equal protection guarantee indigents have also won the right to appointed counsel, first in felony cases, 372 U.S. 335, 340; and today in any instance where they are exposed to any period of imprisonment. 407 U.S. 25, 40.

The equal protection clause applies only to states; however, any denial of equal protection by the Federal government is treated as a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 347 U.S. 497 499. 55 N.C.L. Rev. 540 (1977). Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enforce the Amendment. Congress therefore may on its own initiative take steps to outlaw discrimination. 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 2000h. See affirmative action.

A phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requiring that states guarantee the same rights, privileges, and protections to all citizens. This doctrine reinforces that of due process of law and prevents states from passing or enforcing laws that arbitrarily discriminate against anyone.

The noun has one meaning:

Meaning #1: guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the US constitution and by the due-process clause of the 5th amendment