Equal Protection Cases Based on Gender

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was designed to ensure fairness, particularly for newly emancipated African Americans after the Civil War.

Over time, its interpretation expanded. Among other things, the Supreme Court has used the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to combat gender discrimination. This has influenced state laws and led to significant court decisions supporting gender equality.

Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a vital tool in the ongoing fight for equal protection and justice for all Americans.

Historical Context of the 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was added in 1868 after the Civil War. Congress created it to ensure equal treatment under the law for all people. Especially newly freed African Americans.

A key part of this amendment is the equal protection clause, which says that no state can deny any person "the equal protection of the laws." Initially, this focused on racial equality, aiming to provide African Americans with the same legal rights as white people.

As time passed, the interpretation of the equal protection clause expanded beyond racial equality. In the 20th century, women’s rights activists argued that this clause should also protect against sex discrimination. More women attending law school and entering various professions helped push this change.

Efforts like the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) sought to guarantee equal legal rights for all, regardless of sex. However, the ERA never saw ratification. This means it hasn't been officially added to the Constitution because not enough states have approved it.

Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the equal protection clause to address sex discrimination issues. It's used to ensure that laws do not unfairly discriminate on the basis of sex. It has helped advance women’s rights and promote more equal treatment under the law.

Legal Standards

Evaluating claims of discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is a task for the courts. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed standards to review these claims. Gender discrimination claims are examined with what's known as "intermediate scrutiny."

To understand this, it's important to know how the Court evaluates laws that treat people differently. When a law involves a "suspect classification," like race, it is subject to "strict scrutiny," the toughest standard.

Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law serves a "compelling state interest" and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. This is because such laws often affect fundamental rights or involve groups who historically have been discriminated against. Such a group is a "suspect class."

On the other hand, most laws are reviewed under the "rational basis" test, the most lenient standard. Here, a law is constitutional if it is rationally related to a "legitimate government interest." This applies to most classifications that do not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights.

Gender is not considered a suspect class, but it does require more scrutiny than the rational basis test. This is where "intermediate scrutiny" comes in. Under this standard, the government must show two things:

• The state law or action serves "important governmental objectives"
• It is substantially related to achieving those objectives

This means the law must be more than just reasonable; it must be fairly closely tied to a significant government interest.

The development of intermediate scrutiny for gender discrimination claims shows that cases regarding this issue require close examination. It shows that the Court understands that gender discrimination claims are not to be taken lightly. This evolution has helped ensure that laws do not unfairly discriminate based on gender, advancing equality under the law.

Landmark Cases

The Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation and application of the equal protection clause. It now acts as a shield against gender discrimination, but it took a myriad of cases to establish this.

The court first recognized the unconstitutionality of gender-based legal preferences in Reed v. Reed (1971), which prompted changes in state legislatures.

Next came Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), which tackled discriminatory military benefits. This decision reinforced the principle of equality. Soon after, Craig v. Boren (1976) introduced the "intermediate scrutiny" standard for evaluating gender discrimination. This guides state legislatures in crafting laws.

Later, United States v. Virginia (1996) emphasized the necessity for equal educational opportunities, further influencing state policies.

These cases have advanced gender equality and strengthened the legal framework protecting against sex-based discrimination. A breakdown of these cases shows their impact on the application of the equal protection clause.

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Reed v. Reed (1971) was the first Supreme Court case to apply the equal protection clause to gender discrimination. In this case, Sally Reed sued her ex-husband, Cecil Reed. At the core of the case was an Idaho law that preferred men over women as estate administrators. The issue was whether this law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it discriminated based on gender. This was the first time the Court used the equal protection clause to strike down a law for sex discrimination. It marked an important step for gender equality and the women's rights movement.

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) addressed gender discrimination in military benefits. Sharron Frontiero, a U.S. Air Force officer, sued the Secretary of Defense, Elliot Richardson. The suit was over a policy that:

• Automatically gave benefits to male service members’ spouses
• Required female service members to prove their husbands' dependency

The issue was whether this policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In an opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., the Supreme Court ruled in Frontiero's favor and declared the policy discriminatory. Justice Thurgood Marshall joined the plurality opinion and supported the decision to strike down the policy.

Justice Lewis Powell wrote a concurring opinion. He agreed with the outcome but took a more cautious approach to establishing standards for gender discrimination.

This case was significant because it highlighted the unconstitutionality of sex-based discrimination. The ruling advanced gender equality. It reinforced the application of the Equal Protection Clause to challenge discriminatory laws.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Craig v. Boren (1976) established the "intermediate scrutiny" standard for gender discrimination cases. In this case, Curtis Craig and a vendor sued David Boren, the Governor of Oklahoma, over a law allowing women to buy beer at the age of 18 but prohibiting men from purchasing it until they were 21. The issue was whether this gender-based law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional. In so doing, it introduced "intermediate scrutiny" for gender discrimination cases. This requires laws discriminating based on gender to serve important governmental objectives. They must also be substantially related to those objectives.

Justice John Paul Stevens joined the majority opinion. He supported the introduction of "intermediate scrutiny" for gender discrimination cases. This case strengthened gender equality under the Equal Protection Clause. It called for stricter review standards for sex-based classifications.

United States v. Virginia (1996)

In United States v. Virginia (1996), the United States sued the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) over its male-only admissions policy. The issue was whether this policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court ruled that VMI's exclusion of women was unconstitutional. The state failed to show an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for gender-based discrimination.

The case reinforced that gender discrimination requires "intermediate scrutiny." It highlighted the need for equal opportunities in education. The case advanced women's rights and strengthened the use of the Equal Protection Clause to protect gender equality.

Ongoing Challenges and Debates

Conversations around gender discrimination have evolved to include a few major issues in recent years. One key issue is the rights of transgender individuals. This includes access to bathrooms. It also includes healthcare matters, and the ability to change legal documents to reflect their gender identity. Court cases and state laws vary widely. There are ongoing legal battles about what protections the Fourteenth Amendment provides.

Sexual orientation is another area of debate, particularly concerning discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. The Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) highlighted these issues.

The case examined employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Court found such discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision is significant for Fourteenth Amendment interpretations. It reinforces equal protection for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Society's evolving understandings of gender and sexuality present challenges to existing legal frameworks. Some argue for broader interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure equal rights for all. Others raise concerns about religious freedom and states' rights, leading to ongoing legal and societal debates.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been instrumental in promoting equality in the United States. Initially aimed at ensuring racial equality, its interpretation has expanded. The equal protection clause has struck down different kinds of discriminatory laws and advanced justice. But the pursuit of equal protection is not over. The Fourteenth Amendment continues to be a crucial tool in the ongoing effort to ensure fairness and justice for all Americans.