Equal Protection Cases Based on Race

Shortly after the Civil War, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Added in 1868, this new amendment included the equal protection clause to protect the civil rights of all people, particularly formerly enslaved African Americans.

The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to curb racial discrimination and prevent the states from denying anyone equal protection under the law. Over time, it has evolved to serve as a broad constitutional foundation for challenging unequal treatment based on race and other protected characteristics.

In this article, we’ll explore some of the major U.S. Supreme Court cases that have helped shape this development. We’ll review the Court’s handling of racial segregation and interracial marriage under the equal protection clause. The Court’s affirmative action decisions also provide invaluable insight into its treatment of equal protection claims based on race.

Let’s start with the language of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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

At the time of its enactment, the equal protection clause’s most important purpose was to guard against unequal treatment based on race. Landmark Supreme Court decisions have expanded its interpretation. Today, the equal protection clause serves as a powerful constitutional tool for challenging several types of discrimination.

A Brief History

Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment at a time of great change in America. The Civil War ended slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment. But many southern states quickly passed harsh “Black Codes.” These laws aimed to keep newly freed Black people from gaining full rights. They limited their ability to do things like vote, own property, work freely, and access education.

Lawmakers soon realized that strong federal action was needed to protect the basic rights of former slaves from state governments. So, during this period known as Reconstruction, Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment.

The equal protection clause specifically says that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The architects intended for this powerful language to:

• Combat discriminatory laws that treated people differently based on race

• Ensure everyone, especially African Americans, would receive fair and equal treatment under the law

• Stop states from taking away African Americans’ newly recognized freedoms and basic civil rights

This idea of equal protection stemmed from notions of fairness and equality. Through several major Supreme Court cases, it also helped pave the way for future civil rights movements.

Standard of Review

Initially, the Supreme Court didn’t use formal standards for evaluating equal protection claims based on race. Instead, it used a reasonableness approach that was more deferential to federal and state legislatures. This rational basis review simply required laws to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

As a result, the Court often upheld laws unless they were clearly arbitrary or unreasonable. We see this in Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the Court’s most influential early cases upholding racial segregation.

Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)

In Plessy, the High Court addressed a Louisiana law that separated Black and white people in public places.

The case centered around Homer Plessy, who described himself as “seven-eighths Caucasian and one-eighth African.” Under Louisiana’s Separate Car Act, he was not allowed to sit in a “whites-only” train car.

Working with a group called the Comité de Citoyens (Citizens Committee), Plessy bought a train ticket to Covington, Louisiana, and sat in the whites-only car, knowing he’d likely be asked to move. The group’s goal was to test the law in court and show how arbitrary its racial classifications were.

As expected, the train conductor asked Plessy to move to a different car. When he refused, a private detective arrested Plessy for violating the Separate Car Act.

Plessy sued, arguing that segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Plessy. It held that separate-but-equal facilities were constitutional. So, the states could create separate schools, restaurants, hotels, and even water fountains. It essentially legalized segregation for nearly 60 years.

In Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent, he said the Constitution is “color-blind” and that segregation laws are inherently unequal and unconstitutional because they treat citizens differently based on race.

Because of the inequality associated with segregation, Plessy is widely regarded as the case that gave the states legal permission for widespread discrimination. The ruling represented a major setback for civil rights after Reconstruction.

But, Plessy remained the law of the land until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it in 1954.

Shortly before Brown, however, the Court decided Shelley v. Kraemer, which dealt with racially restrictive covenants.

Shelley vs. Kraemer (1948)

In the 1940s, many neighborhoods had racial covenants. These agreements said homes couldn’t be sold to Black people or other minorities.

The Shelley family bought a house in one of these St. Louis neighborhoods. The Shelleys were African American. A white resident sued to stop them from moving in.

Lower courts upheld the racially restrictive covenant. Since it was a private agreement, the courts found it wasn’t subject to the equal protection clause. In other words, no state action was involved.

The Supreme Court disagreed and found for the Shelleys.

It clarified that private individuals can make agreements like restrictive covenants. But state courts can’t enforce them. If a court enforces an agreement, it becomes state action because the government is involved. Court enforcement of a racial covenant thus violates the government’s obligation to treat everyone the same under the equal protection clause.

The Shelley decision meant that courts could no longer enforce even private racially discriminatory housing rules. The ruling marked significant progress toward ending legal housing discrimination in the U.S.

Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)

By the 1950s, the Court had started to treat race as a suspect classification demanding more scrutiny.

Civil rights lawyers were actively challenging racially segregated public schools across the South. They argued that separate schools:

• Could never be truly equal

• Detrimentally affected Black children

One such case involved Linda Brown, a Black third-grader in Topeka, Kansas. Brown had to walk around a mile and pass through a busy train junction before catching a bus to her segregated school, even though her home was only about four blocks from another elementary school designated for white students. Brown’s father sued the school board with help from the NAACP, led by then-lawyer Thurgood Marshall.

The Supreme Court consolidated five separate cases into Brown v. Board of Education. They all raised the same constitutional question: Does racial segregation in public schools violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause?

In a unanimous decision, the High Court held that it does. It explained that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Court said segregation in public schools made Black children feel inferior and harmed their ability to learn.

The ruling overturned Plessy and led to the desegregation of public schools. While this sparked resistance, it also paved the way for the civil rights movement and future legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

By establishing that laws based on racial classifications are inherently unequal and unconstitutional, Brown also provided a legal framework for challenging laws banning interracial marriage. We see this most notably in Loving v. Virginia, where the Court applied the standard that later became known as strict scrutiny.

Loving vs. Virginia (1967)

Sixteen states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage in the 1960s. Virginia was one of them.

So, Virginia couple Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter married in Washington, D.C. Loving was white. Jeter was Black and Native American. When the newlyweds returned home to Virginia, they were arrested.

After the state convicted them, the couple challenged the state law. They claimed its ban on interracial marriage violated their equal protection and other constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed. It explained that Virginia’s law was based entirely on racial classifications, which are “inherently suspect.” As such, they must be examined with “the most rigid scrutiny.”

The Court found no reason for the law other than racial discrimination, which the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to eliminate.

Accordingly, it struck down the Virginia law and legalized interracial marriage nationwide. The ruling also established marriage as a fundamental right and said that racial restrictions on it violate equal protection and due process.

Affirmative Action Cases

The equal protection clause has also been central to several affirmative action debates. While the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions aren’t limited to higher education matters, its analyses in them provide invaluable insight.

These cases also illustrate the Court’s more formalized application of strict scrutiny to evaluate race-based equal protection claims. Specifically, this high standard demands that policies using racial classifications be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.

In the discussion that follows, we examine the Court’s treatment of race considerations in college admissions within this framework.

Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke (1978)

In 1978, the Supreme Court addressed the use of racial quotas in the college admissions process.

The University of California, Davis’ medical school had a special admissions program. It set aside 16 spots in the entering class for minority students.

The school denied admission to Allan Bakke, a white man. Bakke had higher test scores and grades than some of the minority students who were admitted through the special program.

Bakke sued. He claimed the racial quotas violated equal protection and were discriminatory.

In a fractured decision with multiple concurring and dissenting opinions, the Court ultimately agreed. The plurality opinion written by Justice Powell said the quotas were unconstitutional because they set aside a specific number of positions exclusively for certain racial groups.

Powell acknowledged diversity as a compelling interest. But he explained that the school’s rigid use of quotas wasn’t narrowly tailored to achieve that interest because it automatically excluded applicants (like Bakke) solely on the basis of race.

Powell clarified that it’s okay for schools to consider race. But it must be one of several factors in a holistic admissions process.

The Bakke ruling allowed affirmative action admissions policies to continue, but with limits.

Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003)

Grutter v. Bollinger involved a challenge to the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race in college admissions decisions. The school used race as one factor among several to help achieve a diverse student body.

The Supreme Court ultimately determined the school’s race-conscious admissions policy didn’t violate equal protection. It found a diverse student body to be a compelling interest and that Michigan’s policy was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003)

In a related case, the University of Michigan’s undergraduate program gave automatic points to minority applicants. The Court found this too mechanical, similar to a quota system. Unlike a holistic review process, the point system didn’t consider each applicant as an individual.

Accordingly, the Court held the program violated equal protection because it wasn’t narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity.

The decision emphasized that schools must carefully design race-based policies to avoid discrimination and meet strict constitutional standards.

Fisher vs. University of Texas (2013 and 2016)

Abigail Fisher, a white student, sued the University of Texas after it denied her admission. She claimed the school’s use of race in its admissions process violated equal protection. The Court directed the lower court to apply strict scrutiny to evaluate the policy.

In 2016, the Court ruled in favor of the university. It found the school’s use of race as one factor in a holistic admissions process was narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of educational diversity.

Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard and University of North Carolina (2023)

Here, a nonprofit student group separately sued the University of North Carolina and Harvard College. In both cases, the group claimed the schools’ use of race as a factor in admissions violated equal protection and discriminated against Asian American applicants.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases together. It issued one opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts addressing both cases.

The Court ultimately ruled against the schools. It said neither institution’s use of race satisfied strict scrutiny. Their goals were too vague to qualify as compelling interests. And their methods using imprecise racial categories and race-based advantages weren’t narrowly tailored. They couldn’t justify their use of race in admissions as necessary or fair.

The Court emphasized that schools must treat students as individuals, not racial categories. Still, they may consider how race has affected a student’s life if it’s part of their personal story.

As we’ve seen, the Supreme Court’s approach to race-based equal protection cases has shifted over time. Addressing race and equality in a modern society will undoubtedly continue to bring new challenges. While we can expect more dynamic interpretations from the Court in the years to come, one thing is certain: The journey toward fair treatment under the law continues to evolve.