The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution ensures that all individuals have equal access to lawyers and the courts, and are treated equally by the law and justice system. It prohibits states from denying anyone the same protection of the laws, regardless of race, gender, or other differences. This concept is critical to maintaining civil rights and denying states the ability to discriminate. The clause was enacted after the Civil War and extends equal protection to state citizens, but not to the federal government. The US Supreme Court landmark case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruled that separate but equal educational facilities were unconstitutional. The clause seeks to deny willful discrimination and ensure equal opportunities, not equality of result. Congress can enact additional legislation to deny the legality of policies or practices that produce racial inequality.
The equal protection of the law refers to the rights of individuals to have equal access to lawyers and the courts and to be treated equally by the law and the justice system in both substantive and procedural law. Similar to the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause found in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no state may deny any person the same protection of the laws. The United States Constitution holds that equal treatment is an element of fundamental equity in the commitment to enforce that “all men are created equal.”
Put simply, equal protection of the law means that state laws must provide for equal treatment of individuals in similar conditions regardless of racial, gender, or other differences. This idea is critical to maintaining civil rights because, without equal protection, states could ban people from working based on skin color, gender, religion, or other issues. Minorities may be denied access to the justice system when their rights have been violated or to report crimes. By providing access to the law, the courts, and equal treatment, the 14th Amendment denies states the ability to discriminate.
The concept is important because it marks a shift in constitutionalism within the judiciary. Prior to the enactment of the 14th amendment, individual rights were protected from encroachment only by the federal government. After its enactment, individuals were also protected by heads of state and governments. This clause extends equal protection to state citizens, but does not apply to the federal government and only grants equal protection and not equal rights as mandated by the states.
After the Civil War, Congress exercised its authority under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution to exclude Confederate states from Congress because they had rebelled against the Union. In 1865, Congress passed the Equal Protection Clause and made its ratification by the former Confederate states a condition of acceptance into the Union. While this clause applies only to state governments, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is generally interpreted to impose the same restrictions on the federal government.
The US Supreme Court decided a landmark case in 1954 regarding equal protection of the law. In Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal educational facilities that separated minority students from white students were not truly equal and were unconstitutional because the segregation of black students did not afford them equal rights under the law. Over time, this concept has evolved to include issues such as equal pay for equal work and equality in taxation.
Through the development of applicable jurisprudence in the matter, equal protection of law was not created to ensure equality of result as a result but to present equal opportunities. The evil this clause seeks to deny is willful discrimination. The decisions in the cases of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corporation (1977) and Washington v. Davis (1976) argue that Congress can enact additional legislation denying the legality of endorsing policies or practices that produce racial inequality as an unintended consequence. Critics argue that courts should also consider how policies and practices might have a disparate effect.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
