SherbyNet - /page/wikibook/entry.mu

Micron Document

<!DOCTYPE html>

<title>Equal Protection Clause</title>

</head>

Equal Protection Clause

</h1>

</header>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1246091330">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:22em;float:right;clear:right;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em;background:var(--background-color-neutral-subtle,#f8f9fa);border:1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);padding:0.2em;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse;display:table}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:table!important;float:right!important;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em!important}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-subgroup{width:100%;margin:0;border-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-left{float:left;clear:left;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-none{float:none;clear:both;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-outer-title{padding:0 0.4em 0.2em;font-size:125%;line-height:1.2em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-image{padding:0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-caption,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle-with-top-image,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-caption{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle{padding:0.4em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.2em 0.8em;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-image{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-heading{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content{padding:0 0.5em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content-with-subgroup{padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-below{padding:0.3em 0.8em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-below{border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-navbar{text-align:right;font-size:115%;padding:0 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:left;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6em;font-size:105%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title-c{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:center;margin:0 3.3em}@media(max-width:640px){body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:100%!important;clear:both;float:none!important;margin-left:0!important;margin-right:0!important}}body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .sidebar a>img{max-width:none!important}@media screen{html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><table class="sidebar nomobile nowraplinks"><tbody><tr><th class="sidebar-title"><a href="Constitutional_law_of_the_United_States" title="Constitutional law of the United States">Constitutional law of the United States</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-image"></td></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#f5f5dc">

Overview</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist">

<ul><li><a href="Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Constitution of the United States">Articles</a></li>

<li><a href="List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States">Amendments</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="History_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="History of the United States Constitution">History</a></li>

<li><a href="Judicial_review_in_the_United_States" title="Judicial review in the United States">Judicial review</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#f5f5dc">

Principles</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist">

<ul><li><a href="Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Separation of powers under the United States Constitution">Separation of powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitutional_right#United_States" title="Constitutional right">Individual rights</a></li>

<li><a href="Federalism_in_the_United_States" title="Federalism in the United States">Federalism</a></li>

<li><a href="Republicanism_in_the_United_States" title="Republicanism in the United States">Republicanism</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_footing" title="Equal footing">Equal footing</a></li>

<li><a href="Standard_of_review" title="Standard of review">Tiers of scrutiny</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#f5f5dc">

Government structure</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress">Legislative branch</a></li>

<li><a href="President_of_the_United_States" title="President of the United States">Executive branch</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Judicial branch</a></li>

<li><a href="State_governments_of_the_United_States" title="State governments of the United States">State government</a></li>

<li><a href="Local_government_in_the_United_States" title="Local government in the United States">Local government</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#f5f5dc">

Individual rights</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist">

<ul><li><a href="Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of religion in the United States">Freedom of religion</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States">Freedom of speech</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of the press in the United States">Freedom of the press</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_assembly" title="Freedom of assembly">Freedom of assembly</a></li>

<li><a href="Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States" title="Right to petition in the United States">Right to petition</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_association#United_States_Constitution" title="Freedom of association">Freedom of association</a></li>

<li><a href="Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States" title="Right to keep and bear arms in the United States">Right to keep and bear arms</a></li>

<li><a href="Juries_in_the_United_States" title="Juries in the United States">Right to trial by jury</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_constitutional_criminal_procedure" title="United States constitutional criminal procedure">Criminal procedural rights</a></li>

<li><a href="Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States" title="Privacy laws of the United States">Right to privacy</a></li>

<li><a href="Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Freedom from slavery</a></li>

<li><a href="Due_Process_Clause" title="Due Process Clause">Due process</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_nationality_law" title="United States nationality law">Citizenship</a></li>

<li><a href="Voting_rights_in_the_United_States" title="Voting rights in the United States">Voting rights</a></li>

<li><a href="Ballot_access" title="Ballot access">Right to candidacy</a></li>

<li><a href="Vagueness_doctrine" title="Vagueness doctrine">Comprehensible rules</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#f5f5dc">

Theory</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content hlist">

<ul><li><a href="Living_Constitution" title="Living Constitution">Living Constitution</a></li>

<li><a href="Originalism" title="Originalism">Originalism</a></li>

<li><a href="Substantive_due_process" title="Substantive due process">Substantive due process</a></li>

<li><a href="Political_process_theory_(law)" title="Political process theory (law)">Political process theory</a></li>

<li><a href="Judicial_restraint" title="Judicial restraint">Judicial restraint</a></li>

<li><a href="Purposive_approach" title="Purposive approach">Purposivism</a></li>

<li><a href="Textualism" title="Textualism">Textualism</a></li>

<li><a href="Strict_constructionism" title="Strict constructionism">Strict constructionism</a></li>

<li><a href="Common_good_constitutionalism" title="Common good constitutionalism">Common good constitutionalism</a></li>

<li><a href="Unitary_executive_theory" title="Unitary executive theory">Unitary executive theory</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1239400231">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}}@media print{.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style></td></tr></tbody></table>

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the <a href="Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</a>. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.<a href="#cite_note-1">[1]</a><a href="#cite_note-2">[2]</a><a href="#cite_note-3">[3]</a>

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the <a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866" title="Civil Rights Act of 1866">Civil Rights Act of 1866</a>, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the <a href="American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War">Civil War</a>.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "<a href="Equal_justice_under_law" title="Equal justice under law">Equal Justice Under Law</a>". This clause was the basis for <a href="Brown_v._Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a> (1954), the <a href="Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> decision that helped to dismantle <a href="Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States" title="Racial segregation in the United States">racial segregation</a>. The clause has also been the basis for <a href="Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>, which legalized same-sex marriages, along with many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards, people belonging to various groups.

While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in <a href="Bolling_v._Sharpe" title="Bolling v. Sharpe">Bolling v. Sharpe</a> (1954) that the <a href="Due_Process_Clause" title="Due Process Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the <a href="Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifth Amendment</a> nonetheless requires <a href="Equality_before_the_law" title="Equality before the law">equal protection under the laws</a> of the federal government via <a href="Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Reverse_incorporation" title="Incorporation of the Bill of Rights">reverse incorporation</a>.

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."<a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Background">Background</h2></div>

Though equality under the law is an American legal tradition arguably dating to the Declaration of Independence,<a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a> formal equality for many groups remained elusive. Before passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, which included the Equal Protection Clause, American law did not extend constitutional rights to black Americans.<a href="#cite_note-:52-6">[6]</a> Black people were considered inferior to white Americans, and subject to chattel slavery in the <a href="Slave_states_and_free_states" title="Slave states and free states">slave states</a> until the <a href="Emancipation_Proclamation" title="Emancipation Proclamation">Emancipation Proclamation</a> and the ratification of the <a href="Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Thirteenth Amendment</a>.

Even black Americans that were <a href="Free_Negro" title="Free Negro">not enslaved</a> lacked many crucial legal protections.<a href="#cite_note-:52-6">[6]</a> In the 1857 <a href="Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" title="Dred Scott v. Sandford">Dred Scott v. Sandford</a> decision, the Supreme Court rejected <a href="Abolitionism" title="Abolitionism">abolitionism</a> and determined black men, whether free or in bondage, had no legal rights under the U.S. Constitution at the time.<a href="#cite_note-7">[7]</a> Currently, a plurality of historians believe that this judicial decision set the United States on the path to the Civil War, which led to the ratifications of the Reconstruction Amendments.<a href="#cite_note-8">[8]</a>

Before and during the Civil War, the Southern states prohibited speech of pro-Union citizens, anti-slavery advocates, and northerners in general, since the <a href="Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights" title="Incorporation of the Bill of Rights">Bill of Rights did not apply to the states</a> during such times. During the Civil War, many of the Southern states stripped the state citizenship of many whites and banished them from their state, effectively seizing their property.

Shortly after the Union victory in the <a href="American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War">American Civil War</a>, the <a href="Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Thirteenth Amendment</a> was proposed by Congress and <a href="Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">ratified</a> by the states in 1865, <a href="Abolitionism" title="Abolitionism">abolishing</a> <a href="Slavery" title="Slavery">slavery</a>. Subsequently, many ex-<a href="Confederate_States_of_America" title="Confederate States of America">Confederate</a> states then adopted <a href="Black_Codes_(United_States)" title="Black Codes (United States)">Black Codes</a> following the war, with these laws severely restricting the rights of blacks to hold <a href="Property" title="Property">property</a>, including <a href="Real_property" title="Real property">real property</a> (such as <a href="Real_estate" title="Real estate">real estate</a>), and many forms of <a href="Personal_property" title="Personal property">personal property</a>, and to form legally enforceable <a href="Contracts" class="mw-redirect" title="Contracts">contracts</a>. Such codes also established harsher <a href="Punishment" title="Punishment">criminal consequences</a> for blacks than for whites.<a href="#cite_note-9">[9]</a>

Because of the inequality imposed by Black Codes, a Republican-controlled Congress enacted the <a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866" title="Civil Rights Act of 1866">Civil Rights Act of 1866</a>. The Act provided that all persons born in the United States were citizens (contrary to the Supreme Court's 1857 decision in <a href="Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" title="Dred Scott v. Sandford">Dred Scott v. Sandford</a>), and required that "citizens of every <a href="Race_(classification_of_human_beings)" class="mw-redirect" title="Race (classification of human beings)">race</a> and color ... [have] full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens."<a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a>

President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 amid concerns (among other things) that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to enact such a bill. Such doubts were one factor that led Congress to begin to draft and debate what would become the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a><a href="#cite_note-12">[12]</a> Additionally, Congress wanted to protect <a href="Scalawag" title="Scalawag">white Unionists</a> who were under personal and legal attack in the former Confederacy.<a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a> The effort was led by the <a href="Radical_Republicans" title="Radical Republicans">Radical Republicans</a> of both houses of Congress, including <a href="John_Bingham" title="John Bingham">John Bingham</a>, <a href="Charles_Sumner" title="Charles Sumner">Charles Sumner</a>, and <a href="Thaddeus_Stevens" title="Thaddeus Stevens">Thaddeus Stevens</a>. It was the most influential of these men, John Bingham, who was the principal author and drafter of the Equal Protection Clause.

The <a href="Southern_United_States" title="Southern United States">Southern</a> states were opposed to the Civil Rights Act, but in 1865 Congress, exercising its power under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, to "be the Judge of the ... Qualifications of its own Members", had excluded Southerners from Congress, declaring that their states, having rebelled against the Union, could therefore not elect members to Congress. It was this fact—the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by a "<a href="Rump_legislature" title="Rump legislature">rump</a>" Congress—that permitted the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment by Congress and subsequently proposed to the states. The ratification of the amendment by the former Confederate states was imposed as a condition of their acceptance back into the Union.<a href="#cite_note-14">[14]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Ratification">Ratification</h2></div>

With the return to originalist interpretations of the Constitution, many wonder what was intended by the framers of the reconstruction amendments at the time of their ratification. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery but to what extent it protected other rights was unclear.<a href="#cite_note-:3-15">[15]</a> After the Thirteenth Amendment the South began to institute Black Codes which were restrictive laws seeking to keep black Americans in a position of inferiority. The Fourteenth amendment was ratified by nervous Republicans in response to the rise of Black Codes.<a href="#cite_note-:3-15">[15]</a> This ratification was irregular in many ways. First, there were multiple states that rejected the Fourteenth Amendment, but when their new governments were created due to reconstruction, these new governments accepted the amendment.<a href="#cite_note-:4-16">[16]</a> There were also two states, Ohio and New Jersey, that accepted the amendment and then later passed resolutions rescinding that acceptance. The nullification of the two states' acceptance was considered illegitimate and both Ohio and New Jersey were included in those counted as ratifying the amendment.<a href="#cite_note-:4-16">[16]</a>

Many historians have argued that Fourteenth Amendment was not originally intended to grant sweeping political and social rights to the citizens but instead to solidify the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil rights Act.<a href="#cite_note-:0-17">[17]</a> While it is widely agreed that this was a key reason for the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, many historians adopt a much wider view. It is a popular interpretation that the Fourteenth Amendment was always meant to ensure equal rights for all those in the United States.<a href="#cite_note-:1-18">[18]</a> This argument was used by <a href="Charles_Sumner" title="Charles Sumner">Charles Sumner</a> when he used the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for his arguments to expand the protections afforded to black Americans.<a href="#cite_note-19">[19]</a>

Although the equal protection clause is one of the most cited ideas in legal theory, it received little attention during the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.<a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a> Instead the key tenet of the Fourteenth Amendment at the time of its ratification was the <a href="Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges or Immunities Clause">Privileges or Immunities Clause</a>.<a href="#cite_note-:0-17">[17]</a> This clause sought to protect the privileges and immunities of all citizens which now included black men.<a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a> The scope of this clause was substantially narrowed following the <a href="Slaughter-House_Cases" title="Slaughter-House Cases">Slaughterhouse Cases</a> in which it was determined that a citizen's privileges and immunities were only ensured at the Federal level and that it was government overreach to impose this standard on the states.<a href="#cite_note-:1-18">[18]</a> Even in this halting decision the Court still acknowledged the context in which the Amendment was passed, stating that knowing the evils and injustice the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to combat is key in our legal understanding of its implications and purpose.<a href="#cite_note-22">[22]</a> With the abridgment of the Privileges or Immunities clause, legal arguments aimed at protecting black American's rights became more complex and that is when the equal protection clause started to gain attention for the arguments it could enhance.<a href="#cite_note-:0-17">[17]</a>

During the debate in Congress, more than one version of the clause was considered. Here is the first version: "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure ... to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property."<a href="#cite_note-Kelly-23">[23]</a> Bingham said about this version: "It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons."<a href="#cite_note-Kelly-23">[23]</a> The main opponent of the first version was Congressman <a href="Robert_S._Hale" title="Robert S. Hale">Robert S. Hale</a> of New York, despite Bingham's public assurances that "under no possible interpretation can it ever be made to operate in the State of New York while she occupies her present proud position."<a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a>

Hale ended up voting for the final version, however. When Senator <a href="Jacob_Howard" class="mw-redirect" title="Jacob Howard">Jacob Howard</a> introduced that final version, he said:<a href="#cite_note-25">[25]</a>

<blockquote>It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?</blockquote>

The <a href="39th_United_States_Congress" title="39th United States Congress">39th United States Congress</a> proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866. A difference between the initial and final versions of the clause was that the final version spoke not just of "equal protection" but of "the equal protection of the laws". John Bingham said in January 1867: "no State may deny to any person the equal protection of the laws, including all the limitations for personal protection of every article and section of the Constitution ..."<a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a> By July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment, and that is when the Equal Protection Clause became law.<a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Early_history_following_ratification">Early history following ratification</h2></div>

Bingham said in a speech on March 31, 1871 that the clause meant no State could deny anyone "the equal protection of the Constitution of the United States ... [or] any of the rights which it guarantees to all men", nor deny to anyone "any right secured to him either by the laws and treaties of the United States or of such State."<a href="#cite_note-28">[28]</a> At that time, the meaning of equality varied from one state to another.<a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a>

Four of the original thirteen states never passed any laws barring <a href="Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States" title="Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States">interracial marriage</a>, and the other states were divided on the issue in the Reconstruction era.<a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a> In 1872, the <a href="Alabama_Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="Alabama Supreme Court">Alabama Supreme Court</a> ruled that the state's ban on mixed-race marriage violated the "cardinal principle" of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the Equal Protection Clause.<a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a> Almost a hundred years would pass before the U.S. Supreme Court followed that Alabama case (Burns v. State) in the case of <a href="Loving_v._Virginia" title="Loving v. Virginia">Loving v. Virginia</a>. In Burns, the Alabama Supreme Court said:<a href="#cite_note-32">[32]</a>

<blockquote>Marriage is a civil contract, and in that character alone is dealt with by the municipal law. The same right to make a contract as is enjoyed by white citizens, means the right to make any contract which a white citizen may make. The law intended to destroy the distinctions of race and color in respect to the rights secured by it.</blockquote>

As for public schooling, no states during this era of <a href="Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States" class="mw-redirect" title="Reconstruction era of the United States">Reconstruction</a> actually required separate schools for blacks.<a href="#cite_note-Foner-33">[33]</a> However, some states (e.g. New York) gave local districts discretion to set up schools that were deemed <a href="Separate_but_equal" title="Separate but equal">separate but equal</a>.<a href="#cite_note-Bickel-34">[34]</a> In contrast, Iowa and Massachusetts flatly prohibited segregated schools ever since the 1850s.<a href="#cite_note-35">[35]</a>

Likewise, some states were more favorable to women's legal status than others; New York, for example, had been giving women full property, parental, and widow's rights since 1860, but not the right to vote.<a href="#cite_note-36">[36]</a> No state or territory allowed <a href="Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States" title="Women's suffrage in the United States">women's suffrage</a> when the Equal Protection Clause took effect in 1868.<a href="#cite_note-37">[37]</a> In contrast, at that time African American men had full voting rights in five states.<a href="#cite_note-38">[38]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Gilded_Age_interpretation_and_the_Plessy_decision">Gilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision</h2></div>

In the United States, 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction and the start of the <a href="Gilded_Age" title="Gilded Age">Gilded Age</a>. The first truly landmark equal protection decision by the Supreme Court was <a href="Strauder_v._West_Virginia" title="Strauder v. West Virginia">Strauder v. West Virginia</a> (1880). A black man convicted of murder by an <a href="All-white_jury" class="mw-redirect" title="All-white jury">all-white jury</a> challenged a <a href="West_Virginia" title="West Virginia">West Virginia</a> <a href="Statute" title="Statute">statute</a> excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of [the defendant's] race." At the same time, the Court explicitly allowed <a href="Sexism" title="Sexism">sexism</a> and other types of discrimination, saying that states "may confine the selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this. ... Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color."<a href="#cite_note-39">[39]</a>

The next important postwar case was the <a href="Civil_Rights_Cases" title="Civil Rights Cases">Civil Rights Cases</a> (1883), in which the constitutionality of the <a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875" title="Civil Rights Act of 1875">Civil Rights Act of 1875</a> was at issue. The Act provided that all persons should have "full and equal enjoyment of ... inns, <a href="Common_carriers" class="mw-redirect" title="Common carriers">public conveyances</a> on land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement." In its opinion, the Court explicated what has since become known as the "<a href="State_action_(United_States_constitutional_law)" class="mw-redirect" title="State action (United States constitutional law)">state action doctrine</a>", according to which the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause apply only to acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state. Prohibiting blacks from attending plays or staying in inns was "simply a private wrong". <a href="Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States">Justice</a> <a href="John_Marshall_Harlan" title="John Marshall Harlan">John Marshall Harlan</a> dissented alone, saying, "I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." Harlan went on to argue that because (1) "public conveyances on land and water" use the public highways, and (2) innkeepers engage in what is "a quasi-public employment", and (3) "places of public amusement" are licensed under the laws of the states, excluding blacks from using these services was an act sanctioned by the state.

A few years later, Justice Stanley Matthews wrote the Court's opinion in <a href="Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins" title="Yick Wo v. Hopkins">Yick Wo v. Hopkins</a> (1886).<a href="#cite_note-40">[40]</a> In it the word "person" from the Fourteenth Amendment's section has been given the broadest possible meaning by the U.S. Supreme Court:<a href="#cite_note-FindLaw201311234Annotation18-41">[41]</a>

<blockquote>These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.</blockquote>

Thus, the clause would not be limited to discrimination against African Americans, but would extend to other races, colors, and nationalities such as (in this case) <a href="Alien_(law)" title="Alien (law)">legal aliens</a> in the United States who are Chinese citizens.

In its most contentious Gilded Age interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, <a href="Plessy_v._Ferguson" title="Plessy v. Ferguson">Plessy v. Ferguson</a> (1896), the Supreme Court upheld a <a href="Louisiana" title="Louisiana">Louisiana</a> <a href="Jim_Crow_law" class="mw-redirect" title="Jim Crow law">Jim Crow law</a> that required the <a href="Racial_segregation" title="Racial segregation">segregation</a> of blacks and whites on <a href="Rail_transport" title="Rail transport">railroads</a> and mandated separate railway cars for members of the two races.<a href="#cite_note-42">[42]</a> The Court, speaking through Justice <a href="Henry_B._Brown" class="mw-redirect" title="Henry B. Brown">Henry B. Brown</a>, ruled that the Equal Protection Clause had been intended to defend equality in <a href="Civil_rights" class="mw-redirect" title="Civil rights">civil rights</a>, not equality in <a href="Social_rule" class="mw-redirect" title="Social rule">social arrangements</a>. All that was therefore required of the law was reasonableness, and Louisiana's railway law amply met that requirement, being based on "the established usages, customs and traditions of the people." Justice Harlan again dissented. "Every one knows," he wrote,

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;margin-top:0}@media(min-width:500px){.mw-parser-output .templatequotecite{padding-left:1.6em}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><blockquote class="templatequote">that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons  ... [I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no <a href="Caste" title="Caste">caste</a> here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.</blockquote>

Such "arbitrary separation" by race, Harlan concluded, was "a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the <a href="Equality_before_the_law" title="Equality before the law">equality before the law</a> established by the Constitution."<a href="#cite_note-43">[43]</a> Harlan's philosophy of <a href="Constitutional_colorblindness" title="Constitutional colorblindness">constitutional colorblindness</a> would eventually become more widely accepted, especially after <a href="World_War_II" title="World War II">World War II</a>.

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Rights_of_Corporations">Rights of Corporations</h2></div>

In the decades after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the vast majority of Supreme Court cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with the rights of corporations, not with the rights of African Americans. In the period 1868–1912 (from ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the first known published count by a scholar), the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in 312 cases dealing with the rights of corporations but in only 28 cases dealing with the rights of African Americans. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment was used primarily by corporations to attack laws that regulated corporations, not to protect the formerly enslaved people from racial discrimination.<a href="#cite_note-44">[44]</a> Granting rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to business corporations was introduced into Supreme Court jurisprudence through a series of sleights of hands. <a href="Roscoe_Conkling" title="Roscoe Conkling">Roscoe Conkling</a>, a skillful lawyer and former powerful politician who had served as a member of the <a href="United_States_Congressional_Joint_Committee_on_Reconstruction" title="United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction">United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction</a>, which had drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, was the lawyer who argued an important case known as San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Railroad before the Supreme Court in 1882. In this case, the issue was whether corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<a href="#cite_note-45">[45]</a> Conkling argued that corporations were included in the meaning of the term person and thus entitled to such rights. He told the Court that he, as a member of the Committee that drafted this amendment to the Constitutional, knew that this is what the Committee had intended. Legal historians in the 20th Century examined the history of the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment and found that Conkling had fabricated the notion that the Committee had intended the term "person" of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompass corporations.<a href="#cite_note-46">[46]</a> This San Mateo case was settled by the parties without the Supreme Court issuing an opinion however the Court's misunderstanding of the intention of the Amendment's drafters that had been created by Conkling's likely deliberate deception was never corrected at the time.

A second fraud occurred a few years later in the case of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which left a written legacy of corporate rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. <a href="J._C._Bancroft_Davis" class="mw-redirect" title="J. C. Bancroft Davis">J. C. Bancroft Davis</a>, an attorney and the <a href="Reporter_of_Decisions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States">Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States</a>, drafted the "syllabus" (summary) of Supreme Court decisions and the "headnotes" that summarized key points of law held by the Court. These were published before each case as part of the official court publication communicating the law of the land as held by the Supreme Court. A headnote that Davis as court reporter published immediately preceding the court opinion in Santa Clara case stated:

<blockquote class="templatequote">"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment…, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."</blockquote>

Davis added before the opinion of the Court:

<blockquote class="templatequote">"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE said: 'The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question of whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.'"</blockquote>

In fact, the Supreme Court decided the case on narrower grounds and had specifically avoided this Constitutional issue.<a href="#cite_note-47">[47]</a><a href="#cite_note-48">[48]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="The_Supreme_Court_holding">The Supreme Court holding</h3></div>

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field seized on this deceptive and incorrect published summary by the court reporter Davis in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad and cited that case as precedent in the 1889 case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith in support of the proposition that corporations are entitled to equal protection of the law within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing the opinion for the Court in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field reasoned that a corporation is an association of its human shareholders and thus has rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as the members of the association.<a href="#cite_note-49">[49]</a>

In this Supreme Court case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company v. Beckwith, Justice Field, writing for the Court, thus took this point as established Constitutional law. In the decades that followed, the Supreme Court often continued to cite and to rely on Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad as established precedent that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal protection of the law and due process rights for corporations, even though in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court held or stated no such thing.<a href="#cite_note-50">[50]</a> In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the clause was used to strike down numerous statutes applying to corporations. Since the <a href="New_Deal" title="New Deal">New Deal</a>, however, such invalidations have been rare.<a href="#cite_note-51">[51]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Between_Plessy_and_Brown">Between Plessy and Brown</h2></div>

In <a href="Missouri_ex_rel._Gaines_v._Canada" title="Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada">Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada</a> (1938), <a href="Lloyd_Gaines" class="mw-redirect" title="Lloyd Gaines">Lloyd Gaines</a> was a black student at <a href="Lincoln_University_of_Missouri" class="mw-redirect" title="Lincoln University of Missouri">Lincoln University of Missouri</a>, one of the <a href="Historically_black_colleges" class="mw-redirect" title="Historically black colleges">historically black colleges</a> in <a href="Missouri" title="Missouri">Missouri</a>. He applied for admission to the law school at the all-white <a href="University_of_Missouri" title="University of Missouri">University of Missouri</a>, since Lincoln did not have a law school, but was denied admission due solely to his race. The Supreme Court, applying the separate-but-equal principle of Plessy, held that a State offering a legal education to whites but not to blacks violated the Equal Protection Clause.

In <a href="Shelley_v._Kraemer" title="Shelley v. Kraemer">Shelley v. Kraemer</a> (1948), the Court showed increased willingness to find racial discrimination illegal. The Shelley case concerned a privately made contract that prohibited "people of the Negro or Mongolian race" from living on a particular piece of land. Seeming to go against the spirit, if not the exact letter, of The Civil Rights Cases, the Court found that, although a discriminatory private contract could not violate the Equal Protection Clause, the courts' enforcement of such a contract could; after all, the Supreme Court reasoned, courts were part of the state.

The companion cases <a href="Sweatt_v._Painter" title="Sweatt v. Painter">Sweatt v. Painter</a> and <a href="McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents" title="McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents">McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents</a>, both decided in 1950, paved the way for a series of school integration cases. In McLaurin, the <a href="University_of_Oklahoma" title="University of Oklahoma">University of Oklahoma</a> had admitted McLaurin, an African-American, but had restricted his activities there: he had to sit apart from the rest of the students in the classrooms and library, and could eat in the cafeteria only at a designated table. A unanimous Court, through <a href="Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States" title="Chief Justice of the United States">Chief Justice</a> <a href="Fred_M._Vinson" title="Fred M. Vinson">Fred M. Vinson</a>, said that Oklahoma had deprived McLaurin of the equal protection of the laws:

<blockquote class="templatequote">There is a vast difference—a Constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar.</blockquote>

The present situation, Vinson said, was the former. In Sweatt, the Court considered the constitutionality of Texas's state system of <a href="Law_school" title="Law school">law schools</a>, which educated blacks and whites at separate institutions. The Court (again through Chief Justice Vinson, and again with no dissenters) invalidated the school system—not because it separated students, but rather because the separate facilities were not equal. They lacked "substantial equality in the educational opportunities" offered to their students.

All of these cases, as well as the upcoming Brown case, were litigated by the <a href="National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People" class="mw-redirect" title="National Association for the Advancement of Colored People">National Association for the Advancement of Colored People</a>. It was <a href="Charles_Hamilton_Houston" title="Charles Hamilton Houston">Charles Hamilton Houston</a>, a <a href="Harvard_Law_School" title="Harvard Law School">Harvard Law School</a> graduate and law professor at <a href="Howard_University" title="Howard University">Howard University</a>, who in the 1930s first began to challenge racial discrimination in the federal courts. <a href="Thurgood_Marshall" title="Thurgood Marshall">Thurgood Marshall</a>, a former student of Houston's and the future <a href="United_States_Solicitor_General" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Solicitor General">Solicitor General</a> and <a href="Associate_Justice_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court">Associate Justice of the Supreme Court</a>, joined him. Both men were extraordinarily skilled <a href="Appellate_court" title="Appellate court">appellate</a> advocates, but part of their shrewdness lay in their careful choice of which cases to litigate, selecting the best legal proving grounds for their cause.<a href="#cite_note-53">[53]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Brown_and_its_consequences">Brown and its consequences</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .hatnote{font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output div.hatnote{padding-left:1.6em;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .hatnote i{font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .hatnote+link+.hatnote{margin-top:-0.5em}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .hatnote{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="Brown_v._Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a></div>

In 1954 the contextualization of the equal protection clause would change forever. The Supreme Court itself recognized the gravity of the Brown v Board decision acknowledging that a split decision would be a threat to the role of the Supreme Court and even to the country.<a href="#cite_note-54">[54]</a> When <a href="Earl_Warren" title="Earl Warren">Earl Warren</a> became Chief Justice in 1953, Brown had already come before the Court. While Vinson was still Chief Justice, there had been a preliminary vote on the case at a conference of all nine justices. At that time, the Court had split, with a majority of the justices voting that school segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Warren, however, through persuasion and good-natured cajoling—he had been an extremely successful <a href="Republican_Party_(United_States)" title="Republican Party (United States)">Republican</a> politician before joining the Court—was able to convince all eight associate justices to join his opinion declaring school segregation unconstitutional.<a href="#cite_note-55">[55]</a> In that opinion, Warren wrote:

<blockquote class="templatequote">To separate [children in grade and high schools] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone ... We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.</blockquote>

Warren discouraged other justices, such as <a href="Robert_H._Jackson" title="Robert H. Jackson">Robert H. Jackson</a>, from publishing any concurring opinion; Jackson's draft, which emerged much later (in 1988), included this statement: "Constitutions are easier amended than social customs, and even the North never fully conformed its racial practices to its professions".<a href="#cite_note-56">[56]</a><a href="#cite_note-57">[57]</a> The Court set the case for re-argument on the question of how to implement the decision. In <a href="Brown_II" class="mw-redirect" title="Brown II">Brown II</a>, decided in 1954, it was concluded that since the problems identified in the previous opinion were local, the solutions needed to be so as well. Thus the court devolved authority to local <a href="Board_of_education" title="Board of education">school boards</a> and to the <a href="United_States_district_court" title="United States district court">trial courts</a> that had originally heard the cases. (Brown was actually a consolidation of four different cases from four different states.) The trial courts and localities were told to desegregate with "all deliberate speed".

Partly because of that enigmatic phrase, but mostly because of self-declared "<a href="Massive_resistance" title="Massive resistance">massive resistance</a>" in the South to the desegregation decision, <a href="Racial_integration" title="Racial integration">integration</a> did not begin in any significant way until the mid-1960s and then only to a small degree. In fact, much of the integration in the 1960s happened in response not to Brown but to the <a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964" title="Civil Rights Act of 1964">Civil Rights Act of 1964</a>. The Supreme Court intervened a handful of times in the late 1950s and early 1960s, but its next major desegregation decision was not until <a href="Green_v._School_Board_of_New_Kent_County" class="mw-redirect" title="Green v. School Board of New Kent County">Green v. School Board of New Kent County</a> (1968), in which Justice <a href="William_J._Brennan" class="mw-redirect" title="William J. Brennan">William J. Brennan</a>, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected a "freedom-of-choice" school plan as inadequate. This was a significant decision; freedom-of-choice plans had been very common responses to Brown. Under these plans, parents could choose to send their children to either a formerly white or a formerly black school. Whites almost never opted to attend black-identified schools, however, and blacks rarely attended white-identified schools.

In response to Green, many Southern districts replaced freedom-of-choice with geographically based schooling plans; because <a href="Residential_segregation" title="Residential segregation">residential segregation</a> was widespread, little integration was accomplished. In 1971, the Court in <a href="Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education" title="Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education">Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education</a> approved <a href="Desegregation_busing" title="Desegregation busing">busing</a> as a remedy to segregation; three years later, though, in the case of <a href="Milliken_v._Bradley" title="Milliken v. Bradley">Milliken v. Bradley</a> (1974), it set aside a lower court order that had required the busing of students between <a href="School_district" title="School district">districts</a>, instead of merely within a district. Milliken basically ended the Supreme Court's major involvement in school desegregation; however, up through the 1990s many federal trial courts remained involved in school desegregation cases, many of which had begun in the 1950s and 1960s.<a href="#cite_note-58">[58]</a>

The curtailment of busing in Milliken v. Bradley is one of several reasons that have been cited to explain why equalized educational opportunity in the United States has fallen short of completion. In the view of various liberal scholars, the election of <a href="Richard_Nixon" title="Richard Nixon">Richard Nixon</a> in 1968 meant that the executive branch was no longer behind the Court's constitutional commitments.<a href="#cite_note-59">[59]</a> Also, the Court itself decided in <a href="San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez" title="San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez">San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez</a> (1973) that the Equal Protection Clause allows—but does not require—a state to provide equal educational funding to all students within the state.<a href="#cite_note-60">[60]</a> Moreover, the Court's decision in <a href="Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters" title="Pierce v. Society of Sisters">Pierce v. Society of Sisters</a> (1925) allowed families to opt out of public schools, despite "inequality in economic resources that made the option of private schools available to some and not to others", as <a href="Martha_Minow" title="Martha Minow">Martha Minow</a> has put it.<a href="#cite_note-61">[61]</a>

American public school systems, especially in large metropolitan areas, to a large extent are still <a href="De_facto" title="De facto">de facto</a> segregated. Whether due to Brown, or due to Congressional action, or due to societal change, the percentage of black students attending majority-black school districts decreased somewhat until the early 1980s, at which point that percentage began to increase. By the late 1990s, the percentage of black students in mostly minority school districts had returned to about what it was in the late 1960s.<a href="#cite_note-62">[62]</a> In <a href="Parents_Involved_in_Community_Schools_v._Seattle_School_District_No._1" title="Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1">Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1</a> (2007), the Court held that, if a school system became racially imbalanced due to social factors other than governmental racism, then the state is not as free to integrate schools as if the state had been at fault for the racial imbalance. This is especially evident in the charter school system where parents of students can pick which schools their children attend based on the amenities provided by that school and the needs of the child. It seems that race is a factor in the choice of charter school.<a href="#cite_note-63">[63]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Application_to_federal_government">Application to federal government</h2></div>

By its terms, the clause restrains only state governments. However, the <a href="Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifth Amendment</a>'s <a href="Due_process" title="Due process">due process</a> guarantee, beginning with <a href="Bolling_v._Sharpe" title="Bolling v. Sharpe">Bolling v. Sharpe</a> (1954), has been interpreted as imposing some of the same restrictions on the federal government: "Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive."<a href="#cite_note-64">[64]</a> In <a href="Lawrence_v._Texas" title="Lawrence v. Texas">Lawrence v. Texas</a> (2003) the Supreme Court added: "Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests"<a href="#cite_note-65">[65]</a>

Some scholars have argued that the Court's decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, <a href="Michael_W._McConnell" title="Michael W. McConnell">Michael W. McConnell</a> has written that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated."<a href="#cite_note-66">[66]</a> According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.

The federal government has at times shared its power to discriminate against noncitizens with states through <a href="Cooperative_federalism" title="Cooperative federalism">cooperative federalism</a>. It has done so in the <a href="Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996" class="mw-redirect" title="Welfare Reform Act of 1996">Welfare Reform Act of 1996</a> and the <a href="Children's_Health_Insurance_Program" title="Children's Health Insurance Program">Children's Health Insurance Program</a>.<a href="#cite_note-67">[67]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Tiered_scrutiny">Tiered scrutiny</h2></div>

Despite the undoubted importance of Brown, much of modern equal protection jurisprudence originated in other cases, though not everyone agrees about which other cases. Many scholars assert that the opinion of Justice <a href="Harlan_Stone" class="mw-redirect" title="Harlan Stone">Harlan Stone</a> in <a href="United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co." title="United States v. Carolene Products Co.">United States v. Carolene Products Co.</a> (1938)<a href="#cite_note-68">[68]</a> contained a footnote that was a critical turning point for equal protection jurisprudence,<a href="#cite_note-Goldstein-69">[69]</a> but that assertion is disputed.<a href="#cite_note-70">[70]</a>

Whatever its precise origins, the basic idea of the modern approach is that more judicial scrutiny is triggered by purported discrimination that involves "<a href="Fundamental_rights" title="Fundamental rights">fundamental rights</a>" (such as the right to procreation), and similarly more judicial scrutiny is also triggered if the purported victim of discrimination has been targeted because he or she belongs to a "<a href="Suspect_classification" title="Suspect classification">suspect classification</a>" (such as a single racial group). This modern doctrine was pioneered in <a href="Skinner_v._Oklahoma" title="Skinner v. Oklahoma">Skinner v. Oklahoma</a> (1942), which involved depriving certain criminals of the fundamental right to procreate:<a href="#cite_note-71">[71]</a>

<blockquote>When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment.</blockquote>

Until 1976, the Supreme Court usually ended up dealing with discrimination by using one of two possible levels of scrutiny: what has come to be called "<a href="Strict_scrutiny" title="Strict scrutiny">strict scrutiny</a>" (when a suspect class or fundamental right is involved), or instead the more lenient "<a href="Rational_basis_review" title="Rational basis review">rational basis review</a>". Strict scrutiny means that a challenged statute must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest, and must not have a "less restrictive" alternative. In contrast, rational basis scrutiny merely requires that a challenged statute be "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

However, in the 1976 case of <a href="Craig_v._Boren" title="Craig v. Boren">Craig v. Boren</a>, the Court added another tier of scrutiny, called "<a href="Intermediate_scrutiny" title="Intermediate scrutiny">intermediate scrutiny</a>", regarding gender discrimination. The Court may have added other tiers too, such as "enhanced rational basis" scrutiny,<a href="#cite_note-72">[72]</a> and "exceedingly persuasive basis" scrutiny.<a href="#cite_note-73">[73]</a>

All of this is known as "tiered" scrutiny, and it has had many critics, including Justice <a href="Thurgood_Marshall" title="Thurgood Marshall">Thurgood Marshall</a> who argued for a "spectrum of standards in reviewing discrimination", instead of discrete tiers.<a href="#cite_note-Fleming-74">[74]</a> Justice <a href="John_Paul_Stevens" title="John Paul Stevens">John Paul Stevens</a> argued for only one level of scrutiny, given that "there is only one Equal Protection Clause".<a href="#cite_note-Fleming-74">[74]</a> The whole tiered strategy developed by the Court is meant to reconcile the principle of equal protection with the reality that most laws necessarily discriminate in some way.<a href="#cite_note-75">[75]</a>

Choosing the standard of scrutiny can determine the outcome of a case, and the strict scrutiny standard is often described as "strict in theory and fatal in fact".<a href="#cite_note-76">[76]</a> In order to select the correct level of scrutiny, Justice <a href="Antonin_Scalia" title="Antonin Scalia">Antonin Scalia</a> urged the Court to identify rights as "fundamental" or identify classes as "suspect" by analyzing what was understood when the Equal Protection Clause was adopted, instead of based upon more subjective factors.<a href="#cite_note-77">[77]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Discriminatory_intent_and_disparate_impact">Discriminatory intent and disparate impact</h2></div>

<div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: <a href="Disparate_impact" title="Disparate impact">Disparate impact</a></div>

Because inequalities can be caused either intentionally or unintentionally, the Supreme Court has decided that the Equal Protection Clause itself does not forbid governmental policies that unintentionally lead to racial disparities, though Congress may have some power under other clauses of the Constitution to address unintentional disparate impacts. This subject was addressed in the seminal case of <a href="Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Corp." class="mw-redirect" title="Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.">Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.</a> (1977). In that case, the plaintiff, a housing developer, sued a city in the suburbs of <a href="Chicago%2C_Illinois" class="mw-redirect" title="Chicago, Illinois">Chicago</a> that had refused to <a href="Zoning" title="Zoning">re-zone</a> a plot of land on which the plaintiff intended to build low-income, racially integrated housing. On the face, there was no clear evidence of racially discriminatory intent on the part of <a href="Arlington_Heights%2C_Illinois" title="Arlington Heights, Illinois">Arlington Heights's</a> planning commission. The result was racially disparate, however, since the refusal supposedly prevented mostly African-Americans and Hispanics from moving in. Justice <a href="Lewis_Franklin_Powell_Jr." class="mw-redirect" title="Lewis Franklin Powell Jr.">Lewis Powell</a>, writing for the Court, stated, "Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Disparate impact merely has an <a href="Evidence" title="Evidence">evidentiary</a> value; absent a "stark" pattern, "impact is not determinative."<a href="#cite_note-78">[78]</a>

The result in Arlington Heights was similar to that in <a href="Washington_v._Davis" title="Washington v. Davis">Washington v. Davis</a> (1976), and has been defended on the basis that the Equal Protection Clause was not designed to guarantee <a href="Equality_of_outcome" title="Equality of outcome">equal outcomes</a>, but rather <a href="Equal_opportunity" title="Equal opportunity">equal opportunities</a>; if a legislature wants to correct unintentional but racially disparate effects, it may be able to do so through further legislation.<a href="#cite_note-79">[79]</a> It is possible for a discriminating state to hide its true intention, and one possible solution is for disparate impact to be considered as stronger evidence of discriminatory intent.<a href="#cite_note-80">[80]</a> This debate, though, is currently academic, since the Supreme Court has not changed its basic approach as outlined in Arlington Heights.

For an example of how this rule limits the Court's powers under the Equal Protection Clause, see <a href="McClesky_v._Kemp" class="mw-redirect" title="McClesky v. Kemp">McClesky v. Kemp</a> (1987). In that case a black man was convicted of murdering a white police officer and sentenced to death in the state of Georgia. A study found that killers of whites were more likely to be sentenced to death than were killers of blacks.<a href="#cite_note-Baldus1983-81">[81]</a> The Court found that the defense had failed to prove that such data demonstrated the requisite discriminatory intent by the Georgia legislature and executive branch.

The "<a href="Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City" title="Stop-and-frisk in New York City">Stop and Frisk</a>" policy in New York allows officers to stop anyone who they feel looks suspicious. Data from police stops shows that even when controlling for variability, people who are black and those of Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than white people, with these statistics dating back to the late 1990s. A term that has been created to describe the disproportionate number of police stops of black people is "Driving While Black." This term is used to describe the stopping of innocent black people who are not committing any crime.

In addition to concerns that a discriminating statute can hide its true intention, there have also been concerns that facially neutral evaluative and statistical devices that are permitted by decision-makers can be subject to racial bias and unfair appraisals of ability.'<a href="#cite_note-auto-82">[82]</a> As the equal protection doctrine heavily relies on the ability of neutral evaluative tools to engage in neutral selection procedures, racial biases indirectly permitted under the doctrine can have grave ramifications and result in 'uneven conditions.' '<a href="#cite_note-auto-82">[82]</a><a href="#cite_note-83">[83]</a> These issues can be especially prominent in areas of public benefits, employment, and college admissions, etc.'<a href="#cite_note-auto-82">[82]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Voting_rights">Voting rights</h2></div>

The Supreme Court ruled in <a href="Nixon_v._Herndon" title="Nixon v. Herndon">Nixon v. Herndon</a> (1927) that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the vote based on race. The first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in <a href="Baker_v._Carr" title="Baker v. Carr">Baker v. Carr</a> (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the <a href="Tennessee" title="Tennessee">Tennessee</a> <a href="State_legislature_(United_States)" title="State legislature (United States)">state legislature</a> were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal Protection Clause.

It may seem counterintuitive that the Equal Protection Clause should provide for equal <a href="Voting_rights" class="mw-redirect" title="Voting rights">voting rights</a>; after all, it would seem to make the <a href="Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifteenth Amendment</a> and the <a href="Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Nineteenth Amendment</a> redundant. Indeed, it was on this argument, as well as on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Justice <a href="John_Marshall_Harlan_II" title="John Marshall Harlan II">John M. Harlan</a> (the grandson of the earlier Justice Harlan) relied on in his dissent from Reynolds. Harlan quoted the congressional debates of 1866 to show that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to extend to voting rights, and in reference to the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, he said:

<blockquote class="templatequote">If constitutional amendment was the only means by which all men and, later, women, could be guaranteed the right to vote at all, even for federal officers, how can it be that the far less obvious right to a particular kind of apportionment of state legislatures ... can be conferred by judicial construction of the Fourteenth Amendment? [Emphasis in the original.]</blockquote>

Harlan also relied on the fact that Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment "expressly recognizes the States' power to deny 'or in any way' abridge the right of their inhabitants to vote for 'the members of the [state] Legislature.'"<a href="#cite_note-84">[84]</a> Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a specific federal response to such actions by a state: reduction of a state's representation in Congress. However, the Supreme Court has instead responded that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (<a href="Loving_v._Virginia" title="Loving v. Virginia">Loving v. Virginia</a>); for any discrimination in fundamental rights to be constitutional, the Court requires the legislation to pass strict scrutiny. Under this theory, equal protection jurisprudence has been applied to voting rights.

A recent use of equal protection doctrine came in <a href="Bush_v._Gore" title="Bush v. Gore">Bush v. Gore</a> (2000). At issue was the controversial recount in <a href="Florida" title="Florida">Florida</a> in the aftermath of the <a href="U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. presidential election, 2000">2000 presidential election</a>. There, the Supreme Court held that the different standards of counting ballots across Florida violated the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court used four of its rulings from 1960s voting rights cases (one of which was <a href="Reynolds_v._Sims" title="Reynolds v. Sims">Reynolds v. Sims</a>) to support its ruling in Bush v. Gore. It was not this holding that proved especially controversial among commentators, and indeed, the proposition gained seven out of nine votes; Justices <a href="David_Souter" title="David Souter">Souter</a> and <a href="Stephen_Breyer" title="Stephen Breyer">Breyer</a> joined the majority of five—but only for the finding that there was an Equal Protection violation. Much more controversial was the remedy that the Court chose, namely, the cessation of a statewide recount.<a href="#cite_note-85">[85]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Sex,_disability,_and_romantic_orientation">Sex, disability, and romantic orientation</h2></div>

Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid sex discrimination to the same extent as other forms of discrimination. On the one hand, Section Two of the amendment specifically discouraged states from interfering with the voting rights of "males", which made the amendment anathema to many women when it was proposed in 1866.<a href="#cite_note-86">[86]</a> On the other hand, as feminists like <a href="Victoria_Woodhull" title="Victoria Woodhull">Victoria Woodhull</a> pointed out, the word "person" in the Equal Protection Clause was apparently chosen deliberately, instead of a masculine term that could have easily been used instead.<a href="#cite_note-87">[87]</a>

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <a href="Reed_v._Reed" title="Reed v. Reed">Reed v. Reed</a>, extending the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect women from sex discrimination, in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination. That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in <a href="Craig_v._Boren" title="Craig v. Boren">Craig v. Boren</a> (1976).<a href="#cite_note-88">[88]</a>

The Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full "<a href="Suspect_classification" title="Suspect classification">suspect classification</a>" status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups. In <a href="City_of_Cleburne_v._Cleburne_Living_Center%2C_Inc." title="City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.">City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.</a> (1985), the Court refused to make the <a href="Developmental_disability" title="Developmental disability">developmentally disabled</a> a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Thurgood Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court did appear to examine the City of Cleburne's denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.<a href="#cite_note-89">[89]</a>

The Court's decision in <a href="Romer_v._Evans" title="Romer v. Evans">Romer v. Evans</a> (1996) struck down a <a href="Colorado" title="Colorado">Colorado</a> constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court rejected as "implausible" the dissent's argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else but rather would merely prevent "special treatment of homosexuals."<a href="#cite_note-90">[90]</a> Much as in City of Cleburne, the Romer decision seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test.<a href="#cite_note-91">[91]</a>

In <a href="Lawrence_v._Texas" title="Lawrence v. Texas">Lawrence v. Texas</a> (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting <a href="Homosexual" class="mw-redirect" title="Homosexual">homosexual</a> <a href="Sodomy" title="Sodomy">sodomy</a> on substantive due process grounds. In Justice <a href="Sandra_Day_O'Connor" title="Sandra Day O'Connor">Sandra Day O'Connor</a>'s opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only homosexual sodomy, and not heterosexual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited City of Cleburne, and also relied in part on Romer. Notably, O'Connor's opinion did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to <a href="Sexual_orientation" title="Sexual orientation">sexual orientation</a>.

While the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.<a href="#cite_note-92">[92]</a> Other scholars disagree, arguing that "homophobia" is distinct from sexism, in a sociological sense, and so treating it as such would be an unacceptable judicial shortcut.<a href="#cite_note-93">[93]</a>

In 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal <a href="Defense_of_Marriage_Act" title="Defense of Marriage Act">Defense of Marriage Act</a>, in <a href="United_States_v._Windsor" title="United States v. Windsor">United States v. Windsor</a>. No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with <a href="Federalism" title="Federalism">federalism</a> principles. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor <a href="Erwin_Chemerinsky" title="Erwin Chemerinsky">Erwin Chemerinsky</a>.<a href="#cite_note-94">[94]</a> The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.<a href="#cite_note-95">[95]</a>

In 2015, the Supreme Court held in <a href="Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a> that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Affirmative_action">Affirmative action</h2></div>

<div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: <a href="Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States" title="Affirmative action in the United States">Affirmative action in the United States</a></div>

<a href="Affirmative_action" title="Affirmative action">Affirmative action</a> is the consideration of race, gender, or other factors, to benefit an underrepresented group or to address past injustices done to that group. Individuals who belong to the group are preferred over those who do not belong to the group, for example in educational admissions, hiring, promotions, awarding of contracts, and the like.<a href="#cite_note-Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy-96">[96]</a> Such action may be used as a "tie-breaker" if all other factors are inconclusive, or may be achieved through <a href="Racial_quota" title="Racial quota">quotas</a>, which allot a certain number of benefits to each group.

During <a href="Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States" class="mw-redirect" title="Reconstruction era of the United States">Reconstruction</a>, Congress enacted programs primarily to assist newly freed slaves who had personally been denied many advantages earlier in their lives, based on their former slave status, not necessarily their race or ethnicity. Such legislation was enacted by many of the same people who framed the Equal Protection Clause, though that clause did not apply to such federal legislation, and instead only applied to state legislation.<a href="#cite_note-97">[97]</a> However, now the Equal Protection Clause does apply to private universities and possibly other private businesses (particularly those who accept federal funds), in accordance with <a href="Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard" title="Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard">Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard</a> (2023).

Several important affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court have concerned government <a href="Independent_contractor" class="mw-redirect" title="Independent contractor">contractors</a>—for instance, <a href="Adarand_Constructors_v._Pe%C3%B1a" class="mw-redirect" title="Adarand Constructors v. Peña">Adarand Constructors v. Peña</a> (1995) and <a href="City_of_Richmond_v._J.A._Croson_Co." title="City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.">City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.</a> (1989). But the most famous cases have dealt with affirmative action as practiced by <a href="Public_university" title="Public university">public universities</a>: <a href="Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke" title="Regents of the University of California v. Bakke">Regents of the University of California v. Bakke</a> (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, <a href="Grutter_v._Bollinger" title="Grutter v. Bollinger">Grutter v. Bollinger</a> and <a href="Gratz_v._Bollinger" title="Gratz v. Bollinger">Gratz v. Bollinger</a>.

In Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their <a href="University_and_college_admissions" class="mw-redirect" title="University and college admissions">admissions</a> process. In Grutter and Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the <a href="University_of_Michigan_Law_School" title="University of Michigan Law School">University of Michigan Law School</a>. In <a href="Dicta" class="mw-redirect" title="Dicta">dicta</a>, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. In Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.

In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On one side, critics have argued—including Justice <a href="Clarence_Thomas" title="Clarence Thomas">Clarence Thomas</a> in his dissent to Grutter—that the scrutiny the Court has applied in some cases is much less searching than true strict scrutiny, and that the Court has acted not as a principled legal institution but as a biased political one.<a href="#cite_note-98">[98]</a> On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.<a href="#cite_note-99">[99]</a>

In <a href="Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard" title="Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard">Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard</a> (2023), and its companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), the Supreme Court held that race and ethnicity cannot be used in admissions decisions. In other words, preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity violates The Equal Protection Clause. Although "nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise," Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that "universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today." Moreover, "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly." These opinions effectively ended affirmative action in schools. Although the scope and reach of these opinions are unknown, it is not uncommon for Supreme Court cases' rationale to be applied to similar or analogous facts or circumstances.

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .div-col{margin-top:0.3em;column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .div-col-small{font-size:90%}.mw-parser-output .div-col-rules{column-rule:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .div-col dl,.mw-parser-output .div-col ol,.mw-parser-output .div-col ul{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .div-col li,.mw-parser-output .div-col dd{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div class="div-col" style="column-width: 30em;">

<ul><li><a href="Economic_egalitarianism" class="mw-redirect" title="Economic egalitarianism">Economic egalitarianism</a></li>

<li><a href="Egalitarianism" title="Egalitarianism">Egalitarianism</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_consideration_of_interests" title="Equal consideration of interests">Equal consideration of interests</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_opportunity" title="Equal opportunity">Equal opportunity</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_Rights_Amendment" title="Equal Rights Amendment">Equal Rights Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Equality_before_the_law" title="Equality before the law">Equality before the law</a></li>

<li><a href="Equality_feminism" title="Equality feminism">Equality feminism</a></li>

<li><a href="Equality_of_autonomy" title="Equality of autonomy">Equality of autonomy</a></li>

<li><a href="Equality_of_outcome" title="Equality of outcome">Equality of outcome</a></li>

<li><a href="Equality_of_sacrifice" title="Equality of sacrifice">Equality of sacrifice</a></li>

<li><a href="Racial_equality" title="Racial equality">Racial equality</a></li>

<li><a href="Social_equality" title="Social equality">Social equality</a></li>

<li><a href="Uniform_Parental_Rights_Enforcement_and_Protection_Act" title="Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act">Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act</a></li>

<li><a href="McDonald_v._Board_of_Election_Commissioners_of_Chicago" title="McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago">McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago</a></li></ul></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="References">References</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .reflist{margin-bottom:0.5em;list-style-type:decimal}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .reflist{font-size:90%}}.mw-parser-output .reflist .references{font-size:100%;margin-bottom:0;list-style-type:inherit}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-2{column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-3{column-width:25em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns{margin-top:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns ol{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns li{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-alpha{list-style-type:upper-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-roman{list-style-type:upper-roman}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-alpha{list-style-type:lower-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-greek{list-style-type:lower-greek}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-roman{list-style-type:lower-roman}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div class="reflist reflist-columns references-column-width" style="column-width: 30em;">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free.id-lock-free a{background:url("./mw/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited.id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration.id-lock-registration a{background:url("./mw/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription.id-lock-subscription a{background:url("./mw/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("./mw/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-size:contain;padding:0 1em 0 0}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#085;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><cite id="CITEREFFailinger2009" class="citation encyclopaedia cs1">Failinger, Marie (2009). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200724001052/https://books.google.de/books?id=EHj_0R2rbxAC&pg=PA153&dq=%22Equal+Protection+Clause+similarly%22+encyclopedia&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR3OXkq-TqAhUQiIsKHfiVCyEQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Equal%20Protection%20Clause%20similarly%22%20encyclopedia&f=false">"Equal protection of the laws"</a>. In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). The Encyclopedia of American Law. Infobase. pp. 152–53. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-1-4381-0991-6</bdi>. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=EHj_0R2rbxAC&q=%22Equal+Protection+Clause+similarly%22+encyclopedia&pg=PA153">the original</a> on July 24, 2020. <q>The equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.</q></cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200320205514/https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/fair-treatment-by-the-government-equal-protec">"Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection"</a>. GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. July 30, 2004. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.georgialegalaid.org/resource/fair-treatment-by-the-government-equal-protec">the original</a> on March 20, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. <q>The basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.</q></cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="#cite_ref-3">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200622210933/https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">"Equal Protection"</a>. Legal Information Institute at <a href="Cornell_Law_School" title="Cornell Law School">Cornell Law School</a>. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">the original</a> on June 22, 2020. Retrieved July 24, 2020. <q>Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.</q></cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supremecourthistory.org/classroom-resources-teachers-students/decisions-womens-rights-equal-protection-clause/">"Supreme Court Decisions & Women's Rights: Interpreting the Equal Protection Clause"</a>. Supreme Court Historical Society.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="#cite_ref-5">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFAntieau1952" class="citation journal cs1">Antieau, Chester James (1952). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191013071041/https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol40/iss3/2/">"Equal Protection outside the Clause"</a>. California Law Review. 40 (3): 362–377. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3477928">10.2307/3477928</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3477928">3477928</a>. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol40/iss3/2">the original</a> on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-07-08.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-:52-6">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:52_6-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:52_6-1">b</a> <cite class="citation news cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/#tab-opinion-1964281">"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="#cite_ref-7">^</a> <cite class="citation journal cs1">"Dred Scott, 150 Years Ago". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (55): 19. 2007. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25073625">25073625</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFSwisher1957" class="citation journal cs1">Swisher, Carl Brent (1957). "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After". The Journal of Politics. 19 (2): 167–183. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2127194">10.2307/2127194</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2127194">2127194</a>. <a href="S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154345582">154345582</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="#cite_ref-9">^</a> For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see generally <cite id="CITEREFFoner1988" class="citation book cs1"><a href="Eric_Foner" title="Eric Foner">Foner, Eric</a> (1988). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780060158514">Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863—1877</a>. New York: Harper & Row. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-06-091453-0</bdi>.</cite>, as well as <cite id="CITEREFBrest2000" class="citation book cs1">Brest, Paul; et al. (2000). Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business. pp. 241–242. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-7355-1250-4</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a> See Brest et al. (2000), pp. 242–46.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a> Rosen, Jeffrey. The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a> Newman, Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a> Hardy, David. "Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment As Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68", Whittier Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 695 (2008-2009).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="#cite_ref-14">^</a> See Foner (1988), passim. See also <cite id="CITEREFAckerman2000" class="citation book cs1">Ackerman, Bruce A. (2000). We the People, Volume 2: Transformations. Cambridge: Belknap Press. pp. 99–252. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-674-00397-2</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-:3-15">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:3_15-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:3_15-1">b</a> <cite id="CITEREFZuckert1992" class="citation journal cs1"><a href="Michael_Zuckert" title="Michael Zuckert">Zuckert, Michael P.</a> (1992). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3330348">"Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and Constitutional Rights"</a>. Publius. 22 (2): 69–91. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3330348">10.2307/3330348</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3330348">3330348</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-:4-16">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:4_16-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:4_16-1">b</a> <cite class="citation news cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/433/#tab-opinion-1936403">"Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-30.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-:0-17">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:0_17-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:0_17-1">b</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:0_17-2">c</a> <cite id="CITEREFPerry1979" class="citation journal cs1">Perry, Michael J. (1979). "Modern Equal Protection: A Conceptualization and Appraisal". Columbia Law Review. 79 (6): 1023–1084. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1121988">10.2307/1121988</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1121988">1121988</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-:1-18">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:1_18-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-:1_18-1">b</a> <cite id="CITEREFBoyd1955" class="citation journal cs1">Boyd, William M. (1955). "The Second Emancipation". Phylon. 16 (1): 77–86. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F272626">10.2307/272626</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/272626">272626</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-19"><a href="#cite_ref-19">^</a> Sumner, Charles, and Daniel Murray Pamphlet Collection. . Washington: S. & R. O. Polkinhorn, Printers, 1874. Pdf. <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://www.loc.gov/item/12005313/">https://www.loc.gov/item/12005313/</a> .

</li>

<li id="cite_note-20"><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFFrankMunro1950" class="citation journal cs1">Frank, John P.; Munro, Robert F. (1950). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4037">"The Original Understanding of "Equal Protection of the Laws""</a>. Columbia Law Review. 50 (2): 131–169. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1118709">10.2307/1118709</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1118709">1118709</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-21"><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.launchknowledge.com/constitution/">"Constitution of the United States - We the People"</a>. launchknowledge.com. 10 September 2020.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-22"><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a> <cite class="citation news cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/#tab-opinion-1967657">"Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)"</a>. Justia Law. Retrieved 2018-11-10.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Kelly-23">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Kelly_23-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Kelly_23-1">b</a> Kelly, Alfred. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/sources/Issue%2087.1/fn7.kelly.pdf">Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair</a>", The Supreme Court Review at p. 148 (1965) reprinted in The Supreme Court in and of the Stream of Power (Kermit Hall ed., Psychology Press 2000).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-24"><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a> <a href="Alexander_Bickel" title="Alexander Bickel">Bickel, Alexander</a>. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=fss_papers">The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision</a>", <a href="Harvard_Law_Review" title="Harvard Law Review">Harvard Law Review</a>, Vol. 69, pp. 35-37 (1955). Bingham was speaking on February 27, 1866. See <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/071/0100/01061064.tif">transcript</a>.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-25"><a href="#cite_ref-25">^</a> Curtis, Michael. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=bclr">Resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause and Revising the Slaughter-House Cases Without Exhuming Lochner: Individual Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment</a>", Boston College Law Review, Vol. 38 (1997).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-26"><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a> Glidden, William. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=XROaAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA79">Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States</a>, p. 79 (Lexington Books 2013).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-27"><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFMount2007" class="citation web cs1">Mount, Steve (January 2007). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html">"Ratification of Constitutional Amendments"</a>. Retrieved February 24, 2007.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-28"><a href="#cite_ref-28">^</a> Flack, Horace. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, p. 232 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1908). For Bingham's full speech, see Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 1st Sess., p. 83 (March 31, 1871).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-29"><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a> requires citation

</li>

<li id="cite_note-30"><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a> Wallenstein, Peter. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HFei2wFmNfsC&pg=PA253">Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law--An American History</a>, p. 253 (Palgrave Macmillan, Jan 17, 2004). The four of the original thirteen states are New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Id.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-31"><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a> Pascoe, Peggy. What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, p. 58 (Oxford U. Press 2009).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-32"><a href="#cite_ref-32">^</a> Calabresi, Steven and Matthews, Andrea. "Originalism and Loving v. Virginia", Brigham Young University Law Review (2012).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Foner-33"><a href="#cite_ref-Foner_33-0">^</a> <a href="Eric_Foner" title="Eric Foner">Foner, Eric</a>. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=FhvA0S_op38C&pg=PA321">Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877</a>, pp. 321–322 (HarperCollins 2002).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Bickel-34"><a href="#cite_ref-Bickel_34-0">^</a> <a href="Alexander_Bickel" title="Alexander Bickel">Bickel, Alexander</a>. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=fss_papers">The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision</a>", <a href="Harvard_Law_Review" title="Harvard Law Review">Harvard Law Review</a>, Vol. 69, pp. 35–37 (1955).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-35"><a href="#cite_ref-35">^</a> Finkelman, Paul. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dNtyyzGUNzYC&pg=PA19">Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Antebellum Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment</a>", in The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, p. 19 (Eric Anderson and Alfred A. Moss, eds., LSU Press, 1991).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-36"><a href="#cite_ref-36">^</a> Woloch, Nancy. Women and the American Experience, p. 185 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-37"><a href="#cite_ref-37">^</a> Wayne, Stephen. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oVv-AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27">Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?</a>, p. 27 (CQ PRESS 2013).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-38"><a href="#cite_ref-38">^</a> McInerney, Daniel. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ReTe5oqGna4C&pg=PA212">A Traveller's History of the USA</a>, p. 212 (Interlink Books, 2001).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-39"><a href="#cite_ref-39">^</a> Kerber, Linda. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YAIo1k6SSKcC&pg=PA133">No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies: Women and the Obligations of Citizenship</a>, p. 133 (Macmillan, 1999).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-40"><a href="#cite_ref-40">^</a> Yick Wo v. Hopkins, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_118" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 118">118</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/">356</a> (1886).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-FindLaw201311234Annotation18-41"><a href="#cite_ref-FindLaw201311234Annotation18_41-0">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation18.html#t94">"Annotation 18 - Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection of the Laws: Scope and application state action"</a>. FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Retrieved 23 November 2013.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-42"><a href="#cite_ref-42">^</a> For a summary of the social, political and historical background to Plessy, see <cite id="CITEREFWoodward2001" class="citation book cs1"><a href="C._Vann_Woodward" title="C. Vann Woodward">Woodward, C. Vann</a> (2001). The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 6 and pp. 69–70. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-19-514690-5</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-43"><a href="#cite_ref-43">^</a> For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see <cite id="CITEREFChin1996" class="citation journal cs1">Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). "The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Iowa Law Review. 82: 151. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0021-0552">0021-0552</a>. <a href="SSRN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="SSRN (identifier)">SSRN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121505">1121505</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-44"><a href="#cite_ref-44">^</a> Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) p. xv

</li>

<li id="cite_note-45"><a href="#cite_ref-45">^</a> However, the legal concept of <a href="Corporate_personhood" title="Corporate personhood">corporate personhood</a> predates the Fourteenth Amendment. See Providence Bank v. Billings, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_29" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 29">29</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/29/514/">514</a> (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. See <cite id="CITEREFMayer1990" class="citation journal cs1">Mayer, Carl J. (1990). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070206185756/http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/mayer_personalizing.html">"Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights"</a>. Hastings Law Journal. 41: 577. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0017-8322">0017-8322</a>. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/mayer_personalizing.html">the original</a> on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2007-02-24.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-46"><a href="#cite_ref-46">^</a> Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 128-136

</li>

<li id="cite_note-47"><a href="#cite_ref-47">^</a> Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 150-152

</li>

<li id="cite_note-48"><a href="#cite_ref-48">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/118/394/case.html">Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_118" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 118">118</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/394/">394</a> (1886). John C. Bancroft was a former railway company president. In the summary of the case Bancroft wrote that the Court declared that it did not need to hear argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause protected corporations, because "we are all of the opinion that it does." Id. at 396. Chief Justice <a href="Morrison_Waite" title="Morrison Waite">Morrison Waite</a> announced from the bench that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applied to corporations: "We are all of the opinion that it does." The background and developments from this utterance are treated in H. Graham, Everyman's Constitution--Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Conspiracy Theory, and American Constitutionalism (1968), chs. 9, 10, and pp. 566-84. Justice <a href="Hugo_Black" title="Hugo Black">Hugo Black</a>, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938), and Justice <a href="William_O._Douglas" title="William O. Douglas">William O. Douglas</a>, in <a href="Wheeling_Steel_Corp._v._Glander" title="Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander">Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander</a>, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949), have disagreed that corporations are persons for equal protection purposes.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-49"><a href="#cite_ref-49">^</a> Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 154-156. Justice Field was a friend of railroad magnate <a href="Leland_Stanford" title="Leland Stanford">Leland Stanford</a>, owner of <a href="Southern_Pacific_Railroad" title="Southern Pacific Railroad">Southern Pacific Railroad</a>, the corporation that had filed these lawsuits, and, as a Supreme Court justice and federal appellate judge for years, had a pro-corporationist agenda. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 140-143.) Justice Field must have known that in the Santa Clara case the Supreme Court explicitly declined to address the Constitutional issue because, in a companion case to Santa Clara, Justice Field had urged the Court to address precisely this issue by endorsing such corporate rights on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and he harshly criticized his fellow justices for failing to do so. (Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-50"><a href="#cite_ref-50">^</a> Adam Winkler, "We the Corporations, How American Businesses Won Their Corporate Rights" (New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2018) pp. 156-157

</li>

<li id="cite_note-51"><a href="#cite_ref-51">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFCurrie1987" class="citation journal cs1">Currie, David P. (1987). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles/3828">"The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The New Deal, 1931–1940"</a>. University of Chicago Law Review (Submitted manuscript). 54 (2): 504–555. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1599798">10.2307/1599798</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1599798">1599798</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-52"><a href="#cite_ref-52">^</a> Feldman, Noah. Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, p. 145 (Hachette Digital 2010).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-53"><a href="#cite_ref-53">^</a> See generally <cite id="CITEREFMorris1986" class="citation book cs1">Morris, Aldon D. (1986). Origin of the Civil Rights Movements: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-02-922130-3</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-54"><a href="#cite_ref-54">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFKarlan2009" class="citation journal cs1">Karlan, Pamela S. (2009). "What Can Brown® do for You?: Neutral Principles and the Struggle over the Equal Protection Clause". Duke Law Journal. 58 (6): 1049–1069. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20684748">20684748</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-55"><a href="#cite_ref-55">^</a> For an exhaustive history of the Brown case from start to finish, see <cite id="CITEREFKluger1977" class="citation book cs1">Kluger, Richard (1977). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/simplejusticehis00klug_0">Simple Justice</a>. New York: Vintage. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-394-72255-9</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-56"><a href="#cite_ref-56">^</a> Shimsky, MaryJane. "Hesitating Between Two Worlds": The Civil Rights Odyssey of Robert H. Jackson, p. 468 (ProQuest, 2007).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-57"><a href="#cite_ref-57">^</a> I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, pp. 133–151 (Mark Tushnet, ed. Beacon Press, 2008).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-58"><a href="#cite_ref-58">^</a> For a comprehensive history of school desegregation from Brown through Milliken (one on which this article relies for its assertions), see Brest et al. (2000), pp. 768–794.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-59"><a href="#cite_ref-59">^</a> For the history of the <a href="United_States" title="United States">American</a> political branches' engagement with the Supreme Court's commitment to desegregation (and vice versa), see <cite id="CITEREFPowe2001" class="citation book cs1">Powe, Lucas A. Jr. (2001). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/warrencourtameri00powe">The Warren Court and American Politics</a>. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-674-00683-6</bdi>.</cite>, and <cite id="CITEREFKotz2004" class="citation book cs1">Kotz, Nick (2004). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/judgmentdayslynd00kotz">Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America</a>. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-618-08825-6</bdi>.</cite> For more on the debate summarized in the text, see, e.g., <cite id="CITEREFRosenberg1993" class="citation book cs1">Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1993). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/hollowhope00gera">The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?</a>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-226-72703-5</bdi>.</cite>, and <cite id="CITEREFKlarman1994" class="citation journal cs1">Klarman, Michael J. (1994). "Brown, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement". Virginia Law Review. 80 (1): 7–150. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1073592">10.2307/1073592</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1073592">1073592</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-60"><a href="#cite_ref-60">^</a> Reynolds, Troy. "Education Finance Reform Litigation and Separation of Powers: Kentucky Makes Its Contribution," Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 80 (1991): 309, 310.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-61"><a href="#cite_ref-61">^</a> <a href="Martha_Minow" title="Martha Minow">Minow, Martha</a>. "Confronting the Seduction of Choice: Law, Education and American Pluralism", <a href="Yale_Law_Journal" class="mw-redirect" title="Yale Law Journal">Yale Law Journal</a>, Vol. 120, p. 814, 819-820 (2011)(Pierce "entrenched the pattern of a two-tiered system of schooling, which sanctions private opt-outs from publicly run schools").

</li>

<li id="cite_note-62"><a href="#cite_ref-62">^</a> For data and analysis, see <cite id="CITEREFOrfield2001" class="citation web cs1">Orfield (July 2001). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20070628215819/http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Schools_More_Separate.pdf">"Schools More Separate"</a> (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Schools_More_Separate.pdf">the original</a> (PDF) on 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2008-07-16.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-63"><a href="#cite_ref-63">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFJacobs2011" class="citation journal cs1">Jacobs, Nicholas (8 August 2011). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://eus.sagepub.com/content/45/1/120">"Racial, Economic, and Linguistic Segregation: Analyzing Market Supports in the District of Columbia's Public Charter Schools"</a>. Education and Urban Society. 45 (1): 120–141. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013124511407317">10.1177/0013124511407317</a>. <a href="S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144814662">144814662</a>. Retrieved 28 October 2013.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-64"><a href="#cite_ref-64">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=497">"FindLaw | Cases and Codes"</a>. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. 1954-05-17. Retrieved 2012-08-13.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-65"><a href="#cite_ref-65">^</a> Lawrence v. Texas, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_539" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539">539</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/598/">598</a> (2003), at page 2482

</li>

<li id="cite_note-66"><a href="#cite_ref-66">^</a> Balkin, J. M.; Bruce A. Ackerman (2001). "Part II". What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision. et al. New York University Press. p. 168.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-67"><a href="#cite_ref-67">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFAyers2020" class="citation journal cs1">Ayers, Ava (2020). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3429&context=vlr">"Discriminatory Cooperative Federalism"</a>. Villanova Law Review. 65 (1).</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-68"><a href="#cite_ref-68">^</a> 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). For a theory of judicial review based on Stone's footnote, see Ely, John Hart (1981). Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>0-674-19637-6</bdi>.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Goldstein-69"><a href="#cite_ref-Goldstein_69-0">^</a> Goldstein, Leslie. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume4/issue2/Goldstein4U.Pa.J.Const.L.372(2002).pdf">Between the Tiers: The New(est) Equal Protection and Bush v. Gore</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160304202127/https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/conlaw/articles/volume4/issue2/Goldstein4U.Pa.J.Const.L.372(2002).pdf">Archived</a> 2016-03-04 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>", University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, p. 372 (2002) .

</li>

<li id="cite_note-70"><a href="#cite_ref-70">^</a> Farber, Daniel and Frickey, Philip. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2542&context=facpubs">Is Carolene Products Dead--Reflections on Affirmative Action and the Dynamics of Civil Rights Legislation</a>", California Law Review, Vol. 79, p. 685 (1991). Farber and Frickey point out that "only Chief Justice Hughes, Justice Brandeis, and Justice Roberts joined Justice Stone's footnote", and in any event "It is simply a myth ... that the process theory of footnote four in Carolene Products is, or ever has been, the primary justification for invalidating laws embodying prejudice against racial minorities."

</li>

<li id="cite_note-71"><a href="#cite_ref-71">^</a> Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942). Sometimes the "suspect" classification strand of the modern doctrine is attributed to <a href="Korematsu_v._United_States" title="Korematsu v. United States">Korematsu v. United States</a> (1944), but Korematsu did not involve the Fourteenth Amendment, and moreover it came later than the Skinner opinion (which clearly stated that both deprivation of fundamental rights as well as oppression of a particular race or nationality were invidious).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-72"><a href="#cite_ref-72">^</a> See <a href="City_of_Cleburne_v._Cleburne_Living_Center%2C_Inc." title="City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.">City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.</a> (1985)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-73"><a href="#cite_ref-73">^</a> See <a href="United_States_v._Virginia" title="United States v. Virginia">United States v. Virginia</a> (1996).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Fleming-74">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Fleming_74-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Fleming_74-1">b</a> Fleming, James. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol74/iss4/26">'There is Only One Equal Protection Clause': An Appreciation of Justice Stevens's Equal Protection Jurisprudence</a>", Fordham Law Review, Vol. 74, p. 2301, 2306 (2006).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-75"><a href="#cite_ref-75">^</a> See <a href="Romer_v._Evans" title="Romer v. Evans">Romer v. Evans</a>, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996): "the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons."

</li>

<li id="cite_note-76"><a href="#cite_ref-76">^</a> Curry, James et al. Constitutional Government: The American Experience, p. 282 (Kendall Hunt 2003) (attributing the phrase to Gerald Gunther).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-77"><a href="#cite_ref-77">^</a> Domino, John. Civil Rights & Liberties in the 21st Century, pp. 337-338 (Pearson 2009).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-78"><a href="#cite_ref-78">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFKroll2017" class="citation journal cs1">Kroll, Joshua (2017). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol165/iss3/3/">"Accountable Algorithms (Ricci v. DeStefano: The Tensions Between Equal Protection, Disparate Treatment, and Disparate Impact)"</a>. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 165: 692.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-79"><a href="#cite_ref-79">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFHerzog2005" class="citation web cs1">Herzog, Don (March 22, 2005). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://left2right.typepad.com/main/2005/03/constitutional__1.html">"Constitutional Rights: Two"</a>. Left2Right.</cite> Note that the Court has put significant limits on the <a href="Congressional_power_of_enforcement" title="Congressional power of enforcement">congressional power of enforcement</a>. See <a href="City_of_Boerne_v._Flores" title="City of Boerne v. Flores">City of Boerne v. Flores</a> (1997), <a href="Board_of_Trustees_of_the_University_of_Alabama_v._Garrett" title="Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett">Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett</a> (2001), and <a href="United_States_v._Morrison" title="United States v. Morrison">United States v. Morrison</a> (2000). The Court has also interpreted federal statutory law as limiting the power of states to correct disparate effects. See <a href="Ricci_v._DeStefano" title="Ricci v. DeStefano">Ricci v. DeStefano</a> (2009).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-80"><a href="#cite_ref-80">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFKrieger1995" class="citation journal cs1">Krieger, Linda Hamilton (1995). "The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Protection Opportunity". <a href="Stanford_Law_Review" title="Stanford Law Review">Stanford Law Review</a>. 47 (6): 1161–1248. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1229191">10.2307/1229191</a>. <a href="Hdl_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Hdl (identifier)">hdl</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10125%2F66110">10125/66110</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229191">1229191</a>.</cite>, and <cite id="CITEREFLawrence1987" class="citation journal cs1">Lawrence, Charles R. III (1987). "Reckoning with Unconscious Racism". Stanford Law Review. 39 (2): 317–388. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1228797">10.2307/1228797</a>. <a href="Hdl_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Hdl (identifier)">hdl</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://hdl.handle.net/10125%2F65975">10125/65975</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1228797">1228797</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Baldus1983-81"><a href="#cite_ref-Baldus1983_81-0">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFBaldusPulaski,_CharlesWoodworth,_George1983" class="citation journal cs1">Baldus, David C.; Pulaski, Charles; Woodworth, George (1983). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol74/iss3/2">"Comparative Review of Death Sentences: An Empirical Study of the Georgia Experience"</a>. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Submitted manuscript). 74 (3): 661–753. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1143133">10.2307/1143133</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1143133">1143133</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-auto-82">^ <a href="#cite_ref-auto_82-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-auto_82-1">b</a> <a href="#cite_ref-auto_82-2">c</a> <cite id="CITEREFFeingold2019" class="citation journal cs1">Feingold, Jonathon (2019). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/833">"Equal Protection Design Defects"</a>. Temple Law Review. 91.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-83"><a href="#cite_ref-83">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFBarocas2016" class="citation journal cs1">Barocas, Solon (2016). "Big Data's Disparate Impact". California Law Review. 104 (3): 671–732. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758720">24758720</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-84"><a href="#cite_ref-84">^</a> Van Alstyne, William. "The Fourteenth Amendment, the Right to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty-Ninth Congress", Supreme Court Review, p. 33 (1965).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-85"><a href="#cite_ref-85">^</a> For criticisms as well as several defenses of the Court's decision, see Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, edited by <cite id="CITEREFAckerman2002" class="citation book cs1">Ackerman, Bruce A. (2002). Bush v. Gore: the question of legitimacy. New Haven: Yale University Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-300-09379-7</bdi>.</cite> Another much-cited collection of essays is <cite id="CITEREFSunsteinEpstein,_Richard2001" class="citation book cs1"><a href="Cass_Sunstein" title="Cass Sunstein">Sunstein, Cass</a>; <a href="Richard_Allen_Epstein" class="mw-redirect" title="Richard Allen Epstein">Epstein, Richard</a> (2001). The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: Chicago University Press. <a href="ISBN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISBN (identifier)">ISBN</a> <bdi>978-0-226-21307-1</bdi>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-86"><a href="#cite_ref-86">^</a> Cullen-Dupont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women's History in America, pp. 91-92 (Infobase Publishing, Jan 1, 2009).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-87"><a href="#cite_ref-87">^</a> Hymowitz, Carol and Weissman, Michaele. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0c-adTP64AsC&pg=PT128">A History of Women in America</a>, p. 128 (Random House Digital, 2011).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-88"><a href="#cite_ref-88">^</a> Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-89"><a href="#cite_ref-89">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFPettinga1987" class="citation journal cs1">Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name". Indiana Law Journal. 62: 779. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0019-6665">0019-6665</a>.</cite>; <cite id="CITEREFWadhwani2006" class="citation journal cs1">Wadhwani, Neelum J. (2006). "Rational Reviews, Irrational Results". Texas Law Review. 84: 801, 809–811. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0040-4411">0040-4411</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-90"><a href="#cite_ref-90">^</a> Kuligowski, Monte. "Romer v. Evans: Judicial Judgment or Emotive Utterance?," Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, Vol. 12 (1996).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-91"><a href="#cite_ref-91">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFJoslin1997" class="citation journal cs1">Joslin, Courtney (1997). "Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation". Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 32: 225, 240. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0017-8039">0017-8039</a>. <q>The Romer Court applied a more 'active,' Cleburne-like rational basis standard ...</q></cite>; <cite id="CITEREFFarrell1999" class="citation journal cs1">Farrell, Robert C. (1999). "Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer v. Evans". Indiana Law Review. 32: 357. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0019-6665">0019-6665</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-92"><a href="#cite_ref-92">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFKoppelman1994" class="citation journal cs1">Koppelman, Andrew (1994). "Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination". New York University Law Review. 69: 197. <a href="ISSN_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="ISSN (identifier)">ISSN</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0028-7881">0028-7881</a>.</cite>; see also <a href="Fricke_v._Lynch" title="Fricke v. Lynch">Fricke v. Lynch</a>, 491 F.Supp. 381, 388, fn. 6 (1980), vacated 627 F.2d 1088 [case decided on First Amendment free-speech grounds, but "This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex."]

</li>

<li id="cite_note-93"><a href="#cite_ref-93">^</a> Gerstmann, Evan. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.org/details/samesexmarriagec0000gers/page/55">Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution</a>, p. 55 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-94"><a href="#cite_ref-94">^</a> Chemerinsky, Erwin. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://m.law.com/module/alm/app/nlj.do#!/article/1029801790">Justice Kennedy's World</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130709102734/http://m.law.com/module/alm/app/nlj.do#!/article/1029801790">Archived</a> 2013-07-09 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>", <a href="The_National_Law_Journal" title="The National Law Journal">The National Law Journal</a> (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."

</li>

<li id="cite_note-95"><a href="#cite_ref-95">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/mobile/document/United_States_v_Windsor_No_12307_2013_BL_168683_US_June_26_2013_C/1">United States v. Windsor</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150427114531/http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/mobile/document/United_States_v_Windsor_No_12307_2013_BL_168683_US_June_26_2013_C/1">Archived</a> 2015-04-27 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>, No. 12-307, 2013 BL 169620, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (U.S. June 26, 2013).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy-96"><a href="#cite_ref-Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy_96-0">^</a> <cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/">"Affirmative Action"</a>. Stanford University. Retrieved April 6, 2012.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-97"><a href="#cite_ref-97">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFSchnapper1985" class="citation journal cs1">Schnapper, Eric (1985). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/AFFIRM.ACTION.LEGISLATIVE.HISTORY.%20FOURTEENTH%20AMENDMENT.pdf">"Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment"</a> (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 71 (5): 753–798. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1073012">10.2307/1073012</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1073012">1073012</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-98"><a href="#cite_ref-98">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFSchuck2003" class="citation web cs1">Schuck, Peter H. (September 5, 2003). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20050909065433/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/schuck.php">"Reflections on Grutter"</a>. Jurist. Archived from <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/schuck.php">the original</a> on 2005-09-09.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-99"><a href="#cite_ref-99">^</a> See <cite id="CITEREFSiegel2004" class="citation journal cs1"><a href="Reva_Siegel" title="Reva Siegel">Siegel, Reva B.</a> (2004). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1102">"Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown"</a>. <a href="Harvard_Law_Review" title="Harvard Law Review">Harvard Law Review</a> (Submitted manuscript). 117 (5): 1470–1547. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F4093259">10.2307/4093259</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093259">4093259</a>.</cite>; <cite id="CITEREFCarter1988" class="citation journal cs1"><a href="Stephen_L._Carter" title="Stephen L. Carter">Carter, Stephen L.</a> (1988). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2236">"When Victims Happen to Be Black"</a>. <a href="Yale_Law_Journal" class="mw-redirect" title="Yale Law Journal">Yale Law Journal</a>. 97 (3): 420–447. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.2307%2F796412">10.2307/796412</a>. <a href="JSTOR_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="JSTOR (identifier)">JSTOR</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/796412">796412</a>.</cite>

</li>

</ol></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="External_links">External links</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia{border:1px solid #a2a9b1;background-color:var(--background-color-interactive-subtle,#f8f9fa);margin:0.5em 0;padding:0.2em;line-height:1.5em;font-size:90%}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-header{text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-listen-to{font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-files{text-align:center;margin-top:10px;margin-bottom:0.4em}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-icon{float:left;margin-left:5px;margin-top:10px}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-disclaimer{margin-left:60px;margin-top:10px;font-size:95%;line-height:1.4em}.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia-footer{margin-top:10px;text-align:center}@media(min-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .spoken-wikipedia{width:20em;float:right;clear:right;margin-left:1em}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style>

<ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://federalistblog.us/2009/02/equal_protection_of_the_laws.html">Original Meaning of Equal Protection of the Laws</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110709182320/http://federalistblog.us/2009/02/equal_protection_of_the_laws.html">Archived</a> 2011-07-09 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>, Federalist Blog</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection">Equal Protection: An Overview</a>, Cornell Law School</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130331012812/http://www.heritage.org/constitution/amendments/14/essays/171/equal-protection">Equal Protection</a>[unfit], Heritage Guide to the Constitution</li>

<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/190583/equal-protection">Equal Protection (U.S. law)</a>, Encyclopædia Britannica</li></ul>

<ul><li>Naderi, Siavash. "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2012/11/the/">The Not So Definite Article</a>", Brown Political Review (November 16, 2012).</li></ul>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .navbox{box-sizing:border-box;border:1px solid #a2a9b1;width:100%;clear:both;font-size:88%;text-align:center;padding:1px;margin:1em auto 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbox{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox-styles+.navbox{margin-top:-1px}.mw-parser-output .navbox-inner,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{width:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-title,.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow{padding:0.25em 1em;line-height:1.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group{white-space:nowrap;text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{background-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list{line-height:1.5em;border-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list-with-group{text-align:left;border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid}.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .navbox-image img{max-width:none!important}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .navbox{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="Constitution_of_the_United_States256" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Constitution_of_the_United_States256" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Constitution of the United States">Constitution of the United States</a></div></th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Articles</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Preamble to the United States Constitution">Preamble</a></li>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States">Amendments</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="United_States_Bill_of_Rights" title="United States Bill of Rights">Bill of Rights</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">1795–1804</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Reconstruction_Amendments" title="Reconstruction Amendments">Reconstruction</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">20th century</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States">Unratified</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment" title="Congressional Apportionment Amendment">Congressional Apportionment</a></li>

<li><a href="Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment" title="Titles of Nobility Amendment">Titles of Nobility</a></li>

<li><a href="Corwin_Amendment" title="Corwin Amendment">Corwin Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Child_Labor_Amendment" title="Child Labor Amendment">Child Labor</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_Rights_Amendment" title="Equal Rights Amendment">Equal Rights</a></li>

<li><a href="District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment" title="District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment">District of Columbia Voting Rights</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="List of proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States">Proposed</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Balanced_budget_amendment" title="Balanced budget amendment">Balanced budget</a></li>

<li><a href="Blaine_Amendment" title="Blaine Amendment">Blaine amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Bricker_Amendment" title="Bricker Amendment">Bricker amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Campaign_finance_reform_amendment" title="Campaign finance reform amendment">Campaign finance reform</a></li>

<li><a href="Christian_amendment" title="Christian amendment">Christian amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Crittenden_Compromise" title="Crittenden Compromise">Crittenden Compromise</a></li>

<li><a href="Electoral_College_abolition_amendment" title="Electoral College abolition amendment">Electoral College abolition</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_Opportunity_to_Govern_Amendment" title="Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment">Equal Opportunity to Govern</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_Marriage_Amendment" title="Federal Marriage Amendment">Federal Marriage</a></li>

<li><a href="Flag_Desecration_Amendment" title="Flag Desecration Amendment">Flag Desecration</a></li>

<li><a href="Human_Life_Amendment" title="Human Life Amendment">Human Life</a></li>

<li><a href="Proposed_%22Liberty%22_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Proposed "Liberty" Amendment to the United States Constitution">"Liberty" amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Ludlow_Amendment" title="Ludlow Amendment">Ludlow amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Parental_Rights_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution">Parental Rights amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="School_Prayer_Amendment" title="School Prayer Amendment">School Prayer</a></li>

<li><a href="Single_subject_amendment" title="Single subject amendment">Single subject</a></li>

<li><a href="Victims'_Rights_Amendment" title="Victims' Rights Amendment">Victims' Rights</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution">Convention to propose amendments</a></li>

<li><a href="State_ratifying_conventions" title="State ratifying conventions">State ratifying conventions</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Formation</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="History_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="History of the United States Constitution">History</a></li>

<li><a href="Articles_of_Confederation" title="Articles of Confederation">Articles of Confederation</a></li>

<li><a href="Mount_Vernon_Conference" title="Mount Vernon Conference">Mount Vernon Conference</a></li>

<li><a href="Annapolis_Convention_(1786)" title="Annapolis Convention (1786)">Annapolis Convention</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)" title="Constitutional Convention (United States)">Philadelphia Convention</a>

<ul><li><a href="Virginia_Plan" title="Virginia Plan">Virginia Plan</a></li>

<li><a href="New_Jersey_Plan" title="New Jersey Plan">New Jersey Plan</a></li>

<li><a href="Connecticut_Compromise" title="Connecticut Compromise">Connecticut Compromise</a></li>

<li><a href="Three-fifths_Compromise" title="Three-fifths Compromise">Three-fifths Compromise</a></li>

<li><a href="Committee_of_Detail" title="Committee of Detail">Committee of Detail</a></li>

<li><a href="Framers" class="mw-redirect" title="Framers">List of Framers</a></li>

<li><a href="Signing_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Signing of the United States Constitution">Signing</a></li>

<li><a href="Printing_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Printing of the United States Constitution">Printing</a></li>

<li><a href="Independence_Hall" title="Independence Hall">Independence Hall</a></li>

<li><a href="Syng_inkstand" title="Syng inkstand">Syng inkstand</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="The_Federalist_Papers" title="The Federalist Papers">The Federalist Papers</a></li>

<li><a href="Anti-Federalist_Papers" title="Anti-Federalist Papers">Anti-Federalist Papers</a></li>

<li><a href="Massachusetts_Compromise" title="Massachusetts Compromise">Massachusetts Compromise</a></li>

<li><a href="Virginia_Ratifying_Convention" title="Virginia Ratifying Convention">Virginia Ratifying Convention</a></li>

<li><a href="New_York_Circular_Letter" title="New York Circular Letter">New York Circular Letter</a></li>

<li><a href="Hillsborough_Convention" title="Hillsborough Convention">Hillsborough Convention</a></li>

<li><a href="Fayetteville_Convention" title="Fayetteville Convention">Fayetteville Convention</a></li>

<li><a href="Ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution_by_Rhode_Island" title="Ratification of the United States Constitution by Rhode Island">Rhode Island ratification</a></li>

<li><a href="Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution">Drafting and ratification timeline</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="List_of_clauses_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="List of clauses of the United States Constitution">Clauses</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Admission_to_the_Union" title="Admission to the Union">Admission to the Union</a></li>

<li><a href="Appointments_Clause" title="Appointments Clause">Appointments</a></li>

<li><a href="Appropriations_bill_(United_States)" title="Appropriations bill (United States)">Appropriations</a></li>

<li><a href="Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States" title="Right to petition in the United States">Assemble and Petition Clause</a></li>

<li><a href="Assistance_of_Counsel_Clause" title="Assistance of Counsel Clause">Assistance of Counsel</a></li>

<li><a href="Case_or_Controversy_Clause" title="Case or Controversy Clause">Case or Controversy</a></li>

<li><a href="Citizenship_Clause" title="Citizenship Clause">Citizenship</a></li>

<li><a href="Commerce_Clause" title="Commerce Clause">Commerce</a></li>

<li><a href="Interstate_compact" title="Interstate compact">Compact</a></li>

<li><a href="Compulsory_Process_Clause" title="Compulsory Process Clause">Compulsory Process</a></li>

<li><a href="Confrontation_Clause" title="Confrontation Clause">Confrontation</a></li>

<li><a href="Congressional_power_of_enforcement" title="Congressional power of enforcement">Congressional enforcement</a></li>

<li><a href="Contingent_election" title="Contingent election">Contingent Elections</a></li>

<li><a href="Contract_Clause" title="Contract Clause">Contract</a></li>

<li><a href="Copyright_Clause" title="Copyright Clause">Copyright and Patent</a></li>

<li><a href="Double_Jeopardy_Clause" title="Double Jeopardy Clause">Double Jeopardy</a></li>

<li><a href="Due_Process_Clause" title="Due Process Clause">Due Process</a></li>

<li><a href="Elections_clause" class="mw-redirect" title="Elections clause">Elections</a></li>

<li><a href="Engagements_Clause" title="Engagements Clause">Engagements</a></li>

<li><a href="Establishment_Clause" title="Establishment Clause">Establishment</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Original_and_appellate_jurisdiction" title="Article Three of the United States Constitution">Exceptions</a></li>

<li><a href="Excessive_Bail_Clause" title="Excessive Bail Clause">Excessive Bail</a></li>

<li><a href="Ex_post_facto_law#United_States" title="Ex post facto law">Ex Post Facto</a></li>

<li><a href="Extradition_Clause" title="Extradition Clause">Extradition</a></li>

<li><a href="Free_Exercise_Clause" title="Free Exercise Clause">Free Exercise</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of the press in the United States">Freedom of the Press</a></li>

<li><a href="Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States">Freedom of Speech</a></li>

<li><a href="Fugitive_Slave_Clause" title="Fugitive Slave Clause">Fugitive Slave</a></li>

<li><a href="Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause" title="Full Faith and Credit Clause">Full Faith and Credit</a></li>

<li><a href="Taxing_and_Spending_Clause#General_Welfare_Clause" title="Taxing and Spending Clause">General Welfare</a></li>

<li><a href="Guarantee_Clause" title="Guarantee Clause">Guarantee</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_congressional_apportionment" title="United States congressional apportionment">House Apportionment</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_impeachment_in_the_United_States" title="Federal impeachment in the United States">Impeachment</a></li>

<li><a href="Import-Export_Clause" title="Import-Export Clause">Import-Export</a></li>

<li><a href="Ineligibility_Clause" title="Ineligibility Clause">Ineligibility</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Militia</a></li>

<li><a href="Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)" title="Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)">Natural-born citizen</a></li>

<li><a href="Necessary_and_Proper_Clause" title="Necessary and Proper Clause">Necessary and Proper</a></li>

<li><a href="No_Religious_Test_Clause" title="No Religious Test Clause">No Religious Test</a></li>

<li><a href="Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States" title="Oath of office of the president of the United States">Oath or Affirmation</a></li>

<li><a href="Original_jurisdiction_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States">Original Jurisdiction</a></li>

<li><a href="Origination_Clause" title="Origination Clause">Origination</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States" title="Federal pardons in the United States">Pardon</a></li>

<li><a href="Postal_Clause" title="Postal Clause">Postal</a></li>

<li><a href="Presentment_Clause" title="Presentment Clause">Presentment</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_Electoral_College" title="United States Electoral College">Presidential Electors</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_presidential_line_of_succession" title="United States presidential line of succession">Presidential succession</a></li>

<li><a href="Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges and Immunities Clause">Privileges and Immunities</a></li>

<li><a href="Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges or Immunities Clause">Privileges or Immunities</a></li>

<li><a href="Recess_appointment" title="Recess appointment">Recess appointment</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Making_recommendations_to_Congress" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">Recommendation</a></li>

<li><a href="Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Self-Incrimination</a></li>

<li><a href="Speech_or_Debate_Clause" title="Speech or Debate Clause">Speech or Debate</a></li>

<li><a href="Speedy_Trial_Clause" title="Speedy Trial Clause">Speedy Trial</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_State_of_the_Union" title="Article Two of the United States Constitution">State of the Union</a></li>

<li><a href="Supremacy_Clause" title="Supremacy Clause">Supremacy</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Suspension</a></li>

<li><a href="Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Eminent_domain" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Takings</a></li>

<li><a href="Taxing_and_Spending_Clause" title="Taxing and Spending Clause">Taxing and Spending</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Federal_property_and_the_Territorial_Clause" title="Article Four of the United States Constitution">Territorial</a></li>

<li>Title of Nobility (<a href="Foreign_Emoluments_Clause" title="Foreign Emoluments Clause">Foreign Emoluments</a>)</li>

<li><a href="Treaty_Clause" title="Treaty Clause">Treaty</a></li>

<li><a href="Jury_trial#United_States" title="Jury trial">Trial by Jury</a></li>

<li><a href="Vesting_Clauses" title="Vesting Clauses">Vesting</a> (<a href="Legislative_Vesting_Clause" title="Legislative Vesting Clause">Legislative</a> / <a href="Executive_Vesting_Clause" title="Executive Vesting Clause">Executive</a> / <a href="Judicial_Vesting_Clause" title="Judicial Vesting Clause">Judicial</a>)</li>

<li><a href="Vicinage_Clause" title="Vicinage Clause">Vicinage</a></li>

<li><a href="War_Powers_Clause" title="War Powers Clause">War Powers</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Interpretation</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Balance_of_power_(federalism)" class="mw-redirect" title="Balance of power (federalism)">Balance of powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Concurrent_powers" title="Concurrent powers">Concurrent powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitutional_law_of_the_United_States" title="Constitutional law of the United States">Constitutional law</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_constitutional_criminal_procedure" title="United States constitutional criminal procedure">Criminal procedure</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_constitutional_sentencing_law" title="United States constitutional sentencing law">Criminal sentencing</a></li>

<li><a href="Dormant_Commerce_Clause" title="Dormant Commerce Clause">Dormant Commerce Clause</a></li>

<li><a href="Enumerated_powers_(United_States)" class="mw-redirect" title="Enumerated powers (United States)">Enumerated powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Equal_footing" title="Equal footing">Equal footing</a></li>

<li><a href="Executive_privilege" title="Executive privilege">Executive privilege</a></li>

<li><a href="Implied_powers" title="Implied powers">Implied powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights" title="Incorporation of the Bill of Rights">Incorporation of the Bill of Rights</a></li>

<li><a href="Judicial_review_in_the_United_States" title="Judicial review in the United States">Judicial review</a></li>

<li><a href="Nondelegation_doctrine#United_States" title="Nondelegation doctrine">Nondelegation doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Plenary_power" title="Plenary power">Plenary power</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_preemption" title="Federal preemption">Preemption</a></li>

<li><a href="Reserved_powers" title="Reserved powers">Reserved powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Saxbe_fix" title="Saxbe fix">Saxbe fix</a></li>

<li><a href="Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States" title="Separation of church and state in the United States">Separation of church and state</a></li>

<li><a href="Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Separation of powers under the United States Constitution">Separation of powers</a></li>

<li><a href="Symmetric_federalism" title="Symmetric federalism">Symmetric federalism</a></li>

<li><a href="Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments" title="Tax protester constitutional arguments">Taxation power</a></li>

<li><a href="Unitary_executive_theory" title="Unitary executive theory">Unitary executive theory</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Framers" class="mw-redirect" title="Framers">Signatories</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Convention President</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="George_Washington" title="George Washington">George Washington</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">New Hampshire</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="John_Langdon_(politician)" title="John Langdon (politician)">John Langdon</a></li>

<li><a href="Nicholas_Gilman" title="Nicholas Gilman">Nicholas Gilman</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Massachusetts</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Nathaniel_Gorham" title="Nathaniel Gorham">Nathaniel Gorham</a></li>

<li><a href="Rufus_King" title="Rufus King">Rufus King</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Connecticut</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="William_Samuel_Johnson" title="William Samuel Johnson">William Samuel Johnson</a></li>

<li><a href="Roger_Sherman" title="Roger Sherman">Roger Sherman</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">New York</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Alexander_Hamilton" title="Alexander Hamilton">Alexander Hamilton</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">New Jersey</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="William_Livingston" title="William Livingston">William Livingston</a></li>

<li><a href="David_Brearley" title="David Brearley">David Brearley</a></li>

<li><a href="William_Paterson_(judge)" title="William Paterson (judge)">William Paterson</a></li>

<li><a href="Jonathan_Dayton" title="Jonathan Dayton">Jonathan Dayton</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Pennsylvania</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Benjamin_Franklin" title="Benjamin Franklin">Benjamin Franklin</a></li>

<li><a href="Thomas_Mifflin" title="Thomas Mifflin">Thomas Mifflin</a></li>

<li><a href="Robert_Morris_(financier)" title="Robert Morris (financier)">Robert Morris</a></li>

<li><a href="George_Clymer" title="George Clymer">George Clymer</a></li>

<li><a href="Thomas_Fitzsimons" title="Thomas Fitzsimons">Thomas Fitzsimons</a></li>

<li><a href="Jared_Ingersoll" title="Jared Ingersoll">Jared Ingersoll</a></li>

<li><a href="James_Wilson_(Founding_Father)" title="James Wilson (Founding Father)">James Wilson</a></li>

<li><a href="Gouverneur_Morris" title="Gouverneur Morris">Gouverneur Morris</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Delaware</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="George_Read_(American_politician%2C_born_1733)" title="George Read (American politician, born 1733)">George Read</a></li>

<li><a href="Gunning_Bedford_Jr." title="Gunning Bedford Jr.">Gunning Bedford Jr.</a></li>

<li><a href="John_Dickinson" title="John Dickinson">John Dickinson</a></li>

<li><a href="Richard_Bassett_(Delaware_politician)" title="Richard Bassett (Delaware politician)">Richard Bassett</a></li>

<li><a href="Jacob_Broom" title="Jacob Broom">Jacob Broom</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Maryland</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="James_McHenry" title="James McHenry">James McHenry</a></li>

<li><a href="Daniel_of_St._Thomas_Jenifer" title="Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer">Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer</a></li>

<li><a href="Daniel_Carroll" title="Daniel Carroll">Daniel Carroll</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Virginia</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="John_Blair_Jr." title="John Blair Jr.">John Blair</a></li>

<li><a href="James_Madison" title="James Madison">James Madison</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">North Carolina</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="William_Blount" title="William Blount">William Blount</a></li>

<li><a href="Richard_Dobbs_Spaight" title="Richard Dobbs Spaight">Richard Dobbs Spaight</a></li>

<li><a href="Hugh_Williamson" title="Hugh Williamson">Hugh Williamson</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">South Carolina</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="John_Rutledge" title="John Rutledge">John Rutledge</a></li>

<li><a href="Charles_Cotesworth_Pinckney" title="Charles Cotesworth Pinckney">Charles Cotesworth Pinckney</a></li>

<li><a href="Charles_Pinckney_(governor)" title="Charles Pinckney (governor)">Charles Pinckney</a></li>

<li><a href="Pierce_Butler_(American_politician)" title="Pierce Butler (American politician)">Pierce Butler</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Georgia</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="William_Few" title="William Few">William Few</a></li>

<li><a href="Abraham_Baldwin" title="Abraham Baldwin">Abraham Baldwin</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Convention Secretary</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="William_Jackson_(secretary)" title="William Jackson (secretary)">William Jackson</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Related</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Notes_of_Debates_in_the_Federal_Convention_of_1787" title="Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787">Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787</a></li>

<li><a href="Jacob_Shallus" title="Jacob Shallus">Jacob Shallus</a></li>

<li><a href="William_Lambert_(writer)" title="William Lambert (writer)">William Lambert</a></li>

<li><a href="Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Bibliography of the United States Constitution">Bibliography of the United States Constitution</a></li>

<li><a href="Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States" title="Founding Fathers of the United States">Founding Fathers of the United States</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Display and legacy</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="National_Archives_Building" title="National Archives Building">National Archives</a>

<ul><li><a href="Charters_of_Freedom" title="Charters of Freedom">Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Independence_Mall_(Philadelphia)" class="mw-redirect" title="Independence Mall (Philadelphia)">Independence Mall</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitution_Day_and_Citizenship_Day" title="Constitution Day and Citizenship Day">Constitution Day and Citizenship Day</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitution_Gardens" title="Constitution Gardens">Constitution Gardens</a></li>

<li><a href="Constitution_Week" title="Constitution Week">Constitution Week</a></li>

<li><a href="National_Constitution_Center" title="National Constitution Center">National Constitution Center</a></li>

<li><a href="Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States">Scene at the Signing of the Constitution</a> (painting)</li>

<li><a href="A_More_Perfect_Union_(film)" title="A More Perfect Union (film)">A More Perfect Union</a> (film)</li>

<li><a href="Worldwide_influence_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Worldwide influence of the Constitution of the United States">Worldwide influence</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>

<div class="navbox-styles"></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="United_States_equal_protection_and_criminal_procedure_case_law239" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="United_States_equal_protection_and_criminal_procedure_case_law239" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em">United States and <a href="United_States_constitutional_criminal_procedure" title="United States constitutional criminal procedure">criminal procedure</a> case law</div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Selective_prosecution239" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Selective_prosecution" title="Selective prosecution">Selective prosecution</a></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="McCleskey_v._Kemp" title="McCleskey v. Kemp">McCleskey v. Kemp</a> (1987)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Armstrong" title="United States v. Armstrong">United States v. Armstrong</a> (1996)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Bass" class="mw-redirect" title="United States v. Bass">United States v. Bass</a> (2002)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Discrimination_in_jury_selection239" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em">Discrimination in <a href="Jury_selection_in_the_United_States" title="Jury selection in the United States">jury selection</a></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">History</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Racial_discrimination_in_jury_selection" title="Racial discrimination in jury selection">Racial discrimination in jury selection</a></li>

<li><a href="Women_in_United_States_juries" title="Women in United States juries">Women in United States juries</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Racial exclusion in venire</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Strauder_v._West_Virginia" title="Strauder v. West Virginia">Strauder v. West Virginia</a> (1880)</li>

<li>Virginia v. Rives (1880)</li>

<li>Neal v. Delaware (1881)</li>

<li>Gibson v. Mississippi (1896)</li>

<li>Smith v. Mississippi (1896)</li>

<li>Carter v. Texas (1900)</li>

<li>Tarrance v. Florida (1903)</li>

<li>Brownfield v. South Carolina (1903)</li>

<li>Rogers v. Alabama (1904)</li>

<li><a href="Franklin_v._South_Carolina" title="Franklin v. South Carolina">Franklin v. South Carolina</a> (1910)</li>

<li><a href="Norris_v._Alabama" title="Norris v. Alabama">Norris v. Alabama</a> (1935)</li>

<li><a href="Patterson_v._Alabama" title="Patterson v. Alabama">Patterson v. Alabama</a> (1935)</li>

<li><a href="Hale_v._Kentucky" title="Hale v. Kentucky">Hale v. Kentucky</a> (1938)</li>

<li>Smith v. Texas (1940)</li>

<li>Hill v. Texas (1942)</li>

<li>Patton v. Mississippi (1947)</li>

<li>Cassell v. Texas (1950)</li>

<li>Avery v. Georgia (1953)</li>

<li><a href="Hernandez_v._Texas" title="Hernandez v. Texas">Hernandez v. Texas</a> (1954)</li>

<li>Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958)</li>

<li>Coleman v. Alabama (1967)</li>

<li><a href="Vasquez_v._Hillery" title="Vasquez v. Hillery">Vasquez v. Hillery</a> (1986)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Fair cross-section in venire</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Glasser_v._United_States" title="Glasser v. United States">Glasser v. United States</a> (1942)*</li>

<li>Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. (1946)**</li>

<li>Ballard v. United States (1946)</li>

<li><a href="Taylor_v._Louisiana" title="Taylor v. Louisiana">Taylor v. Louisiana</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Duren_v._Missouri" title="Duren v. Missouri">Duren v. Missouri</a> (1979)</li>

<li>Holland v. Illinois (1990)</li>

<li>Berghuis v. Smith (2010)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Peremptory_challenge" title="Peremptory challenge">Peremptory challenges</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Batson_v._Kentucky" title="Batson v. Kentucky">Batson v. Kentucky</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="Griffith_v._Kentucky" title="Griffith v. Kentucky">Griffith v. Kentucky</a> (1987)</li>

<li><a href="Teague_v._Lane" title="Teague v. Lane">Teague v. Lane</a> (1989)</li>

<li>Ford v. Georgia (1991)</li>

<li><a href="Powers_v._Ohio" title="Powers v. Ohio">Powers v. Ohio</a> (1991)</li>

<li><a href="Edmonson_v._Leesville_Concrete_Company" class="mw-redirect" title="Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company">Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company</a> (1991)**</li>

<li><a href="Hernandez_v._New_York" title="Hernandez v. New York">Hernandez v. New York</a> (1991)</li>

<li>Trevino v. Texas (1992)</li>

<li><a href="Georgia_v._McCollum" title="Georgia v. McCollum">Georgia v. McCollum</a> (1992)</li>

<li><a href="J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B." title="J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.">J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.</a> (1994)</li>

<li>Purkett v. Elem (1995)</li>

<li>Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003)</li>

<li>Johnson v. California (2005)</li>

<li><a href="Miller-El_v._Dretke" title="Miller-El v. Dretke">Miller-El v. Dretke</a> (2005)</li>

<li><a href="Rice_v._Collins" title="Rice v. Collins">Rice v. Collins</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="Snyder_v._Louisiana" title="Snyder v. Louisiana">Snyder v. Louisiana</a> (2008)</li>

<li><a href="Rivera_v._Illinois" title="Rivera v. Illinois">Rivera v. Illinois</a> (2009)</li>

<li><a href="Thaler_v._Haynes" class="mw-redirect" title="Thaler v. Haynes">Thaler v. Haynes</a> (2010)</li>

<li><a href="Felkner_v._Jackson" class="mw-redirect" title="Felkner v. Jackson">Felkner v. Jackson</a> (2011)</li>

<li><a href="Foster_v._Chatman" title="Foster v. Chatman">Foster v. Chatman</a> (2015)</li>

<li><a href="Flowers_v._Mississippi" title="Flowers v. Mississippi">Flowers v. Mississippi</a> (2019)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div>

<ul><li>*Glasser interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **Thiel and Edmonson were civil cases.</li></ul></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>

<div class="navbox-styles"></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="Voting_rights_in_the_United_States127" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Voting_rights_in_the_United_States127" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Voting_rights_in_the_United_States" title="Voting rights in the United States">Voting rights in the United States</a></div></th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Constitutional provisions</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Article I</a>

<ul><li><a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Composition_and_election_of_Members" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">House Electors Qualifications Clause</a></li>

<li><a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_Time,_place,_and_manner_of_holding" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Congressional Elections Clause</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution">1st Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">14th Amendment</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause" title="Privileges or Immunities Clause">Privileges or Immunities Clause</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">15th Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">17th Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">19th Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Twenty-third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution">23rd Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution">24th Amendment</a></li>

<li><a href="Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution">26th Amendment</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Federal laws and agencies</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_Department_of_Justice" title="United States Department of Justice">U.S. Department of Justice</a></li>

<li><a href="Enforcement_Acts" title="Enforcement Acts">Enforcement Acts</a>

<ul><li><a href="Enforcement_Act_of_1870" title="Enforcement Act of 1870">Enforcement Act of 1870</a></li>

<li><a href="Second_Enforcement_Act" title="Second Enforcement Act">Second Enforcement Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957" title="Civil Rights Act of 1957">Civil Rights Act of 1957</a>

<ul><li><a href="United_States_Commission_on_Civil_Rights" title="United States Commission on Civil Rights">U.S. Commission on Civil Rights</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_Department_of_Justice_Civil_Rights_Division" title="United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division">U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1960" title="Civil Rights Act of 1960">Civil Rights Act of 1960</a></li>

<li><a href="Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964" title="Civil Rights Act of 1964">Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964</a></li>

<li><a href="Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965" title="Voting Rights Act of 1965">Voting Rights Act of 1965</a>

<ul><li><a href="Amendments_to_the_Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965" title="Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965">amendments</a></li>

<li><a href="List_of_jurisdictions_subject_to_the_special_provisions_of_the_Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965" title="List of jurisdictions subject to the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965">covered jurisdictions</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Voting_Accessibility_for_the_Elderly_and_Handicapped_Act" title="Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act">Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Uniformed_and_Overseas_Citizens_Absentee_Voting_Act" title="Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act">Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act</a>

<ul><li><a href="Federal_Voting_Assistance_Program" title="Federal Voting Assistance Program">Federal Voting Assistance Program</a></li>

<li><a href="Military_and_Overseas_Voter_Empowerment_Act" title="Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act">Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="National_Voter_Registration_Act_of_1993" title="National Voter Registration Act of 1993">National Voter Registration Act of 1993</a></li>

<li><a href="Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996" title="Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996</a></li>

<li><a href="Help_America_Vote_Act" title="Help America Vote Act">Help America Vote Act of 2002</a>

<ul><li><a href="Election_Assistance_Commission" title="Election Assistance Commission">Election Assistance Commission</a></li></ul></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">State laws</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Voter access</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Absentee_ballot" title="Absentee ballot">Absentee ballot</a></li>

<li><a href="Early_voting" title="Early voting">Early voting</a></li>

<li><a href="Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States" title="Initiatives and referendums in the United States">Initiatives and referendums</a></li>

<li><a href="Postal_voting_in_the_United_States" title="Postal voting in the United States">Postal voting</a></li>

<li><a href="Provisional_ballot" title="Provisional ballot">Provisional ballot</a></li>

<li><a href="Recall_election" title="Recall election">Recall election</a></li>

<li><a href="Voter_registration_in_the_United_States" title="Voter registration in the United States">Voter registration in the U.S.</a></li>

<li><a href="Voting_in_space#United_States" title="Voting in space">Voting in space</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Vote denial</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Electoral_fraud_in_the_United_States" title="Electoral fraud in the United States">Electoral fraud</a> (<a href="List_of_cases_of_electoral_fraud_in_the_United_States" title="List of cases of electoral fraud in the United States">Cases</a>)</li>

<li><a href="Grandfather_clause" title="Grandfather clause">Grandfather clause</a></li>

<li><a href="Literacy_test" title="Literacy test">Literacy test</a></li>

<li><a href="Voter_caging" title="Voter caging">Voter caging</a></li>

<li><a href="Voter_identification_laws_in_the_United_States" title="Voter identification laws in the United States">Voter ID laws</a></li>

<li><a href="Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States" title="Voter suppression in the United States">Voter suppression</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Vote dilution</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="First-past-the-post_voting" title="First-past-the-post voting">First-past-the-post voting</a></li>

<li><a href="Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States" title="Gerrymandering in the United States">Gerrymandering</a></li>

<li><a href="Multiple_non-transferable_vote" class="mw-redirect" title="Multiple non-transferable vote">Multiple non-transferable vote</a></li>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">By group</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<li><a href="Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States" title="Women's suffrage in the United States">Women</a></li>

<li><a href="Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States" title="Felony disenfranchisement in the United States">Felons</a></li>

<li><a href="Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_United_States" title="Non-citizen suffrage in the United States">Foreigners</a></li>

<li><a href="Transgender_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States" title="Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States">Transgender people</a></li>

<li><a href="Youth_suffrage#United_States" title="Youth suffrage">Young adults</a></li>

<li><a href="Black_suffrage_in_the_United_States" title="Black suffrage in the United States">African Americans</a></li>

<li><a href="Native_American_voting_rights" class="mw-redirect" title="Native American voting rights">Native Americans</a></li></ul>

</div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th id="Residents_of_non-states23" scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Residents of non-states</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Elections_in_American_Samoa" title="Elections in American Samoa">American Samoa</a></li>

<li><a href="District_of_Columbia_federal_voting_rights" title="District of Columbia federal voting rights">District of Columbia</a></li>

<li><a href="Northern_Mariana_Islands'_at-large_congressional_district" title="Northern Mariana Islands' at-large congressional district">Northern Mariana Islands</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_voting_rights_in_Puerto_Rico" title="Federal voting rights in Puerto Rico">Puerto Rico</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_Virgin_Islands'_at-large_congressional_district" title="United States Virgin Islands' at-large congressional district">United States Virgin Islands</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">History</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States" title="Timeline of voting rights in the United States">Timeline</a></li>

<li><a href="Disfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_era" title="Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era">Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era</a></li>

<li><a href="Timeline_of_women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States" title="Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States">Timeline of women's suffrage</a></li>

<li><a href="Suffrage_Hikes" title="Suffrage Hikes">Suffrage Hikes</a></li>

<li><a href="Woman_Suffrage_Procession" title="Woman Suffrage Procession">Woman Suffrage Procession</a></li>

<li><a href="Silent_Sentinels" title="Silent Sentinels">Silent Sentinels</a></li>

<li><a href="List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#American_(United_States)" title="List of suffragists and suffragettes">U.S. suffragists</a>

<ul><li><a href="List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#Major_suffrage_publications" title="List of suffragists and suffragettes">Publications</a></li></ul></li>

<li>"<a href="Give_Us_the_Ballot" title="Give Us the Ballot">Give Us the Ballot</a>"</li>

<li><a href="Freedom_Summer" title="Freedom Summer">Freedom Summer</a></li>

<li><a href="Selma_to_Montgomery_marches" title="Selma to Montgomery marches">Selma to Montgomery marches</a></li>

<li><a href="Women's_poll_tax_repeal_movement" title="Women's poll tax repeal movement">Women's poll tax repeal movement</a></li>

<li><a href="History_of_direct_democracy_in_the_United_States" title="History of direct democracy in the United States">History of direct democracy</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Related</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Ballot_access" title="Ballot access">Ballot access</a></li>

<li><a href="Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States" title="Campaign finance in the United States">Campaign finance</a></li>

<li><a href="Citizenship_of_the_United_States" title="Citizenship of the United States">Citizenship</a>

<ul><li><a href="Indian_Citizenship_Act" title="Indian Citizenship Act">Native Americans</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States" title="Democratic backsliding in the United States">Democratic backsliding in the United States</a></li>

<li><a href="Disfranchisement" title="Disfranchisement">Disfranchisement</a></li>

<li><a href="Election" title="Election">Election</a></li>

<li><a href="Election_law" title="Election law">Election law</a></li>

<li><a href="Elections_in_the_United_States" title="Elections in the United States">Elections in the U.S.</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_Electoral_College" title="United States Electoral College">Electoral College</a></li>

<li><a href="Electoral_reform_in_the_United_States" title="Electoral reform in the United States">Electoral reform</a></li>

<li><a href="Electoral_system" title="Electoral system">Electoral system</a></li>

<li><a href="Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States" title="Ranked-choice voting in the United States">Ranked-choice voting in the U.S.</a></li>

<li><a href="National_Voting_Rights_Museum" title="National Voting Rights Museum">National Voting Rights Museum</a></li>

<li><a href="Redistricting" title="Redistricting">Redistricting</a></li>

<li><a href="Secret_ballot" title="Secret ballot">Secret ballot</a></li>

<li><a href="Suffrage" title="Suffrage">Suffrage</a></li>

<li><a href="Voter_registration" title="Voter registration">Voter registration</a></li>

<li><a href="Voting" title="Voting">Voting</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div>

<div class="navbox-styles"></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="United_States_Fourteenth_Amendment_case_law235" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="United_States_Fourteenth_Amendment_case_law235" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">United States Fourteenth Amendment</a> case law</div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Citizenship_Clause235" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Citizenship_Clause" title="Citizenship Clause">Citizenship Clause</a></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Slaughter-House_Cases" title="Slaughter-House Cases">Slaughter-House Cases</a> (1873)</li>

<li><a href="Minor_v._Happersett" title="Minor v. Happersett">Minor v. Happersett</a> (1875)</li>

<li><a href="Elk_v._Wilkins" title="Elk v. Wilkins">Elk v. Wilkins</a> (1884)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark" title="United States v. Wong Kim Ark">United States v. Wong Kim Ark</a> (1898)</li>

<li><a href="Mackenzie_v._Hare" title="Mackenzie v. Hare">Mackenzie v. Hare</a> (1915)</li>

<li><a href="Perez_v._Brownell" title="Perez v. Brownell">Perez v. Brownell</a> (1958)</li>

<li><a href="Afroyim_v._Rusk" title="Afroyim v. Rusk">Afroyim v. Rusk</a> (1967)</li>

<li><a href="Rogers_v._Bellei" title="Rogers v. Bellei">Rogers v. Bellei</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Vance_v._Terrazas" title="Vance v. Terrazas">Vance v. Terrazas</a> (1980)</li>

<li><a href="Saenz_v._Roe" title="Saenz v. Roe">Saenz v. Roe</a> (1999)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Due_Process_Clause235" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Due_Process_Clause" title="Due Process Clause">Due Process Clause</a></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Lochner_era" title="Lochner era">Economic substantive due process</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Mugler_v._Kansas" title="Mugler v. Kansas">Mugler v. Kansas</a> (1887)</li>

<li><a href="Allgeyer_v._Louisiana" title="Allgeyer v. Louisiana">Allgeyer v. Louisiana</a> (1897)</li>

<li><a href="Holden_v._Hardy" title="Holden v. Hardy">Holden v. Hardy</a> (1898)</li>

<li><a href="Lochner_v._New_York" title="Lochner v. New York">Lochner v. New York</a> (1905)</li>

<li><a href="Muller_v._Oregon" title="Muller v. Oregon">Muller v. Oregon</a> (1908)</li>

<li><a href="Coppage_v._Kansas" title="Coppage v. Kansas">Coppage v. Kansas</a> (1915)</li>

<li><a href="Buchanan_v._Warley" title="Buchanan v. Warley">Buchanan v. Warley</a> (1917)</li>

<li><a href="Adams_v._Tanner" title="Adams v. Tanner">Adams v. Tanner</a> (1917)</li>

<li><a href="O'Gorman_%26_Young%2C_Inc._v._Hartford_Fire_Insurance_Co." title="O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.">O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.</a> (1931)</li>

<li><a href="West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish" title="West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish">West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish</a> (1937)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Abortion_in_the_United_States" title="Abortion in the United States">Abortion jurisprudence</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._Vuitch" title="United States v. Vuitch">United States v. Vuitch</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Doe_v._Bolton" title="Doe v. Bolton">Doe v. Bolton</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Planned_Parenthood_of_Central_Missouri_v._Danforth" title="Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth">Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Bellotti_v._Baird_(1976)" title="Bellotti v. Baird (1976)">Bellotti v. Baird I</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Colautti_v._Franklin" title="Colautti v. Franklin">Colautti v. Franklin</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Bellotti_v._Baird_(1979)" title="Bellotti v. Baird (1979)">Bellotti v. Baird II</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="H._L._v._Matheson" title="H. L. v. Matheson">H. L. v. Matheson</a> (1981)</li>

<li><a href="City_of_Akron_v._Akron_Center_for_Reproductive_Health" title="City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health">City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health</a> (1983)</li>

<li><a href="Thornburgh_v._American_College_of_Obstetricians_%26_Gynecologists" title="Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists">Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services" title="Webster v. Reproductive Health Services">Webster v. Reproductive Health Services</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Hodgson_v._Minnesota" title="Hodgson v. Minnesota">Hodgson v. Minnesota</a> (1990)</li>

<li><a href="Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey" title="Planned Parenthood v. Casey">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</a> (1992)</li>

<li><a href="Mazurek_v._Armstrong" title="Mazurek v. Armstrong">Mazurek v. Armstrong</a> (1997)</li>

<li><a href="Stenberg_v._Carhart" title="Stenberg v. Carhart">Stenberg v. Carhart</a> (2000)</li>

<li><a href="Ayotte_v._Planned_Parenthood_of_Northern_New_England" title="Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England">Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="Gonzales_v._Carhart" title="Gonzales v. Carhart">Gonzales v. Carhart</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt" title="Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt">Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt</a> (2016)</li>

<li><a href="Azar_v._Garza" title="Azar v. Garza">Azar v. Garza</a> (2018)</li>

<li><a href="Box_v._Planned_Parenthood_of_Indiana_and_Kentucky%2C_Inc." title="Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.">Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.</a> (2019)</li>

<li><a href="June_Medical_Services%2C_LLC_v._Russo" title="June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo">June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo</a> (2020)</li>

<li><a href="Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization" title="Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization">Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</a> (2022)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States" title="Privacy laws of the United States">Right to privacy</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Meyer_v._Nebraska" title="Meyer v. Nebraska">Meyer v. Nebraska</a> (1923)</li>

<li><a href="Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters" title="Pierce v. Society of Sisters">Pierce v. Society of Sisters</a> (1925)</li>

<li><a href="Griswold_v._Connecticut" title="Griswold v. Connecticut">Griswold v. Connecticut</a> (1965)</li>

<li><a href="Doe_v._Bolton" title="Doe v. Bolton">Doe v. Bolton</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Bowers_v._Hardwick" title="Bowers v. Hardwick">Bowers v. Hardwick</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services" title="Webster v. Reproductive Health Services">Webster v. Reproductive Health Services</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey" title="Planned Parenthood v. Casey">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</a> (1992)</li>

<li><a href="Lawrence_v._Texas" title="Lawrence v. Texas">Lawrence v. Texas</a> (2003)</li>

<li><a href="Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization" title="Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization">Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</a> (2022)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Litigation under <a href="Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States" title="Revised Statutes of the United States">R.S. </a><a href="Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871" class="mw-redirect" title="Second Enforcement Act of 1871">§ 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983)</a></th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Monroe_v._Pape" title="Monroe v. Pape">Monroe v. Pape</a> (1961)</li>

<li>McNeese v. Board of Education (1963)</li>

<li>Pierson v. Ray (1967)</li>

<li>Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969)</li>

<li>Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974)</li>

<li>Wood v. Strickland (1975)</li>

<li><a href="O'Connor_v._Donaldson" title="O'Connor v. Donaldson">O'Connor v. Donaldson</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Paul_v._Davis" title="Paul v. Davis">Paul v. Davis</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Imbler_v._Pachtman" title="Imbler v. Pachtman">Imbler v. Pachtman</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Monell_v._Department_of_Social_Services_of_the_City_of_New_York" title="Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York">Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York</a> (1978)</li>

<li>Procunier v. Navarette (1978)</li>

<li><a href="Owen_v._City_of_Independence" title="Owen v. City of Independence">Owen v. City of Independence</a> (1980)</li>

<li><a href="Harlow_v._Fitzgerald" title="Harlow v. Fitzgerald">Harlow v. Fitzgerald</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Felder_v._Casey" title="Felder v. Casey">Felder v. Casey</a> (1988)</li>

<li><a href="Will_v._Michigan_Department_of_State_Police" title="Will v. Michigan Department of State Police">Will v. Michigan Department of State Police</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Gonzaga_University_v._Doe" title="Gonzaga University v. Doe">Gonzaga University v. Doe</a> (2002)</li>

<li><a href="Inyo_County_v._Paiute-Shoshone_Indians_of_the_Bishop_Community" title="Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community">Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community</a> (2003)</li>

<li><a href="City_of_Rancho_Palos_Verdes_v._Abrams" title="City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams">City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams</a> (2005)</li>

<li><a href="Fitzgerald_v._Barnstable_School_Committee" title="Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee">Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee</a> (2009)</li>

<li><a href="Ashcroft_v._Iqbal" title="Ashcroft v. Iqbal">Ashcroft v. Iqbal</a> (2009)</li>

<li><a href="Los_Angeles_County_v._Humphries" title="Los Angeles County v. Humphries">Los Angeles County v. Humphries</a> (2010)</li>

<li><a href="Connick_v._Thompson" title="Connick v. Thompson">Connick v. Thompson</a> (2011)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Other</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Jacobson_v._Massachusetts" title="Jacobson v. Massachusetts">Jacobson v. Massachusetts</a> (1905)</li>

<li><a href="Zucht_v._King" title="Zucht v. King">Zucht v. King</a> (1922)</li>

<li><a href="Powell_v._Alabama" title="Powell v. Alabama">Powell v. Alabama</a> (1932)</li>

<li><a href="Mullane_v._Central_Hanover_Bank_%26_Trust_Co." title="Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.">Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.</a> (1950)</li>

<li><a href="NAACP_v._Alabama" title="NAACP v. Alabama">NAACP v. Alabama</a> (1958)</li>

<li><a href="Hoyt_v._Florida" title="Hoyt v. Florida">Hoyt v. Florida</a> (1961)</li>

<li><a href="Oyler_v._Boles" title="Oyler v. Boles">Oyler v. Boles</a> (1962)</li>

<li><a href="Loving_v._Virginia" title="Loving v. Virginia">Loving v. Virginia</a> (1967)</li>

<li><a href="Epperson_v._Arkansas" title="Epperson v. Arkansas">Epperson v. Arkansas</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="In_re_Winship" title="In re Winship">In re Winship</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Cleveland_Board_of_Education_v._LaFleur" title="Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur">Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Arnett_v._Kennedy" title="Arnett v. Kennedy">Arnett v. Kennedy</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Taylor_v._Louisiana" title="Taylor v. Louisiana">Taylor v. Louisiana</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Goss_v._Lopez" title="Goss v. Lopez">Goss v. Lopez</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Mathews_v._Eldridge" title="Mathews v. Eldridge">Mathews v. Eldridge</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Moore_v._City_of_East_Cleveland" title="Moore v. City of East Cleveland">Moore v. City of East Cleveland</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Duren_v._Missouri" title="Duren v. Missouri">Duren v. Missouri</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Parham_v._J.R." title="Parham v. J.R.">Parham v. J.R.</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Parratt_v._Taylor" title="Parratt v. Taylor">Parratt v. Taylor</a> (1981)</li>

<li><a href="Logan_v._Zimmerman_Brush_Co." title="Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.">Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Kolender_v._Lawson" title="Kolender v. Lawson">Kolender v. Lawson</a> (1983)</li>

<li><a href="Hudson_v._Palmer" title="Hudson v. Palmer">Hudson v. Palmer</a> (1984)</li>

<li><a href="Cleveland_Board_of_Education_v._Loudermill" title="Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill">Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill</a> (1985)</li>

<li><a href="Edwards_v._Aguillard" title="Edwards v. Aguillard">Edwards v. Aguillard</a> (1987)</li>

<li><a href="Turner_v._Safley" title="Turner v. Safley">Turner v. Safley</a> (1987)</li>

<li><a href="DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County" title="DeShaney v. Winnebago County">DeShaney v. Winnebago County</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Michael_H._v._Gerald_D." title="Michael H. v. Gerald D.">Michael H. v. Gerald D.</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Cruzan_v._Director%2C_Missouri_Department_of_Health" title="Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health">Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health</a> (1990)</li>

<li><a href="Washington_v._Glucksberg" title="Washington v. Glucksberg">Washington v. Glucksberg</a> (1997)</li>

<li><a href="Troxel_v._Granville" title="Troxel v. Granville">Troxel v. Granville</a> (2000)</li>

<li><a href="Caperton_v._A.T._Massey_Coal_Co." title="Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.">Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.</a> (2009)</li>

<li><a href="Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a> (2015)</li>

<li><a href="Williams_v._Pennsylvania" title="Williams v. Pennsylvania">Williams v. Pennsylvania</a> (2016)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Equal_Protection_Clause235" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Race</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Pace_v._Alabama" title="Pace v. Alabama">Pace v. Alabama</a> (1883)</li>

<li><a href="Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins" title="Yick Wo v. Hopkins">Yick Wo v. Hopkins</a> (1886)</li>

<li><a href="Plessy_v._Ferguson" title="Plessy v. Ferguson">Plessy v. Ferguson</a> (1896)</li>

<li><a href="Cumming_v._Richmond_County_Board_of_Education" title="Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education">Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education</a> (1899)</li>

<li>Smith v. Texas (1940)</li>

<li><a href="Hirabayashi_v._United_States" title="Hirabayashi v. United States">Hirabayashi v. United States</a> (1943)</li>

<li><a href="Korematsu_v._United_States" title="Korematsu v. United States">Korematsu v. United States</a> (1944)</li>

<li><a href="Sipuel_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma" title="Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma">Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Shelley_v._Kraemer" title="Shelley v. Kraemer">Shelley v. Kraemer</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Perez_v._Sharp" title="Perez v. Sharp">Perez v. Sharp</a> (Cal. 1948)</li>

<li><a href="Sweatt_v._Painter" title="Sweatt v. Painter">Sweatt v. Painter</a> (1950)</li>

<li><a href="McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents" title="McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents">McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents</a> (1950)</li>

<li><a href="Brown_v._Board_of_Education" title="Brown v. Board of Education">Brown v. Board of Education</a> (1954)

<ul><li><a href="Briggs_v._Elliott" title="Briggs v. Elliott">Briggs v. Elliott</a></li>

<li><a href="Davis_v._County_School_Board_of_Prince_Edward_County" title="Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County">Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County</a></li>

<li><a href="Gebhart_v._Belton" title="Gebhart v. Belton">Gebhart v. Belton</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Lucy_v._Adams" title="Lucy v. Adams">Lucy v. Adams</a> (1955)</li>

<li><a href="Browder_v._Gayle" title="Browder v. Gayle">Browder v. Gayle</a> (M.D. Ala. 1956)</li>

<li><a href="Anderson_v._Martin" title="Anderson v. Martin">Anderson v. Martin</a> (1964)</li>

<li><a href="Griffin_v._County_School_Board_of_Prince_Edward_County" title="Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County">Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County</a> (1964)</li>

<li><a href="McLaughlin_v._Florida" title="McLaughlin v. Florida">McLaughlin v. Florida</a> (1964)</li>

<li><a href="Reitman_v._Mulkey" title="Reitman v. Mulkey">Reitman v. Mulkey</a> (1967)</li>

<li><a href="Loving_v._Virginia" title="Loving v. Virginia">Loving v. Virginia</a> (1967)</li>

<li><a href="Lee_v._Washington" title="Lee v. Washington">Lee v. Washington</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="Green_v._County_School_Board_of_New_Kent_County" title="Green v. County School Board of New Kent County">Green v. County School Board of New Kent County</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="Hunter_v._Erickson" title="Hunter v. Erickson">Hunter v. Erickson</a> (1969)</li>

<li><a href="Hadnott_v._Amos" class="mw-redirect" title="Hadnott v. Amos">Hadnott v. Amos</a> (1969)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Montgomery_County_Board_of_Education" title="United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education">United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education</a> (1969)</li>

<li><a href="Alexander_v._Holmes_County_Board_of_Education" title="Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education">Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education</a> (1969)</li>

<li><a href="Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education" title="Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education">Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education</a> (1971)</li>

<li>McDaniel v. Barresi (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Palmer_v._Thompson" title="Palmer v. Thompson">Palmer v. Thompson</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Coit_v._Green" title="Coit v. Green">Coit v. Green</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Guey_Heung_Lee_v._Johnson" title="Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson">Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson</a> (1971)</li>

<li>Jefferson v. Hackney (1972)</li>

<li><a href="Keyes_v._School_District_No._1%2C_Denver" title="Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver">Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Norwood_v._Harrison" title="Norwood v. Harrison">Norwood v. Harrison</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Milliken_v._Bradley" title="Milliken v. Bradley">Milliken v. Bradley</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Village_of_Arlington_Heights_v._Metropolitan_Housing_Development_Corp." title="Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.">Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.</a> (1977)</li>

<li>Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke" title="Regents of the University of California v. Bakke">Regents of the University of California v. Bakke</a> (1978)</li>

<li>Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (1982)</li>

<li>Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Palmore_v._Sidoti" title="Palmore v. Sidoti">Palmore v. Sidoti</a> (1984)</li>

<li><a href="Hunter_v._Underwood" title="Hunter v. Underwood">Hunter v. Underwood</a> (1985)</li>

<li><a href="Wygant_v._Jackson_Board_of_Education" title="Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education">Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="City_of_Richmond_v._J.A._Croson_Co." title="City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.">City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.</a> (1989)</li>

<li><a href="Board_of_Education_of_Oklahoma_City_v._Dowell" title="Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell">Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell</a> (1991)</li>

<li>Freeman v. Pitts (1992)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Fordice" title="United States v. Fordice">United States v. Fordice</a> (1992)</li>

<li>Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville (1993)</li>

<li><a href="Missouri_v._Jenkins" title="Missouri v. Jenkins">Missouri v. Jenkins</a> (1995)</li>

<li>Texas v. Lesage (1999)</li>

<li><a href="Gratz_v._Bollinger" title="Gratz v. Bollinger">Gratz v. Bollinger</a> (2003)</li>

<li><a href="Grutter_v._Bollinger" title="Grutter v. Bollinger">Grutter v. Bollinger</a> (2003)</li>

<li>Johnson v. California (2005)</li>

<li><a href="Parents_Involved_in_Community_Schools_v._Seattle_School_District_No._1" title="Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1">Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2013)" title="Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)">Fisher v. University of Texas I</a> (2013)</li>

<li><a href="Schuette_v._Coalition_to_Defend_Affirmative_Action" class="mw-redirect" title="Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action">Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action</a> (2014)</li>

<li><a href="Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_(2016)" title="Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)">Fisher v. University of Texas II</a> (2016)</li>

<li><a href="Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._President_and_Fellows_of_Harvard_College" class="mw-redirect" title="Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College">Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College</a> (2023)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Sex</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Breedlove_v._Suttles" title="Breedlove v. Suttles">Breedlove v. Suttles</a> (1937)</li>

<li><a href="Goesaert_v._Cleary" title="Goesaert v. Cleary">Goesaert v. Cleary</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Moritz_v._Commissioner" title="Moritz v. Commissioner">Moritz v. Commissioner</a> (1972)</li>

<li><a href="Kahn_v._Shevin" title="Kahn v. Shevin">Kahn v. Shevin</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Geduldig_v._Aiello" title="Geduldig v. Aiello">Geduldig v. Aiello</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Stanton_v._Stanton" title="Stanton v. Stanton">Stanton v. Stanton</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Edwards_v._Healy" class="mw-redirect" title="Edwards v. Healy">Edwards v. Healy</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Craig_v._Boren" title="Craig v. Boren">Craig v. Boren</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Parham_v._Hughes" title="Parham v. Hughes">Parham v. Hughes</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Caban_v._Mohammed" title="Caban v. Mohammed">Caban v. Mohammed</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Personnel_Administrator_of_Massachusetts_v._Feeney" title="Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney">Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney</a> (1979)</li>

<li>Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co. (1980)</li>

<li><a href="Kirchberg_v._Feenstra" title="Kirchberg v. Feenstra">Kirchberg v. Feenstra</a> (1981)</li>

<li><a href="Michael_M._v._Superior_Court_of_Sonoma_County" title="Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County">Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County</a> (1981)</li>

<li><a href="Mississippi_University_for_Women_v._Hogan" title="Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan">Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan</a> (1982)</li>

<li>Lehr v. Robertson (1983)</li>

<li><a href="J.E.B._v._Alabama_ex_rel._T.B." title="J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.">J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.</a> (1994)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Virginia" title="United States v. Virginia">United States v. Virginia</a> (1996)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Skrmetti" title="United States v. Skrmetti">United States v. Skrmetti</a> (2024)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Sexual orientation</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Bowers_v._Hardwick" title="Bowers v. Hardwick">Bowers v. Hardwick</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="Romer_v._Evans" title="Romer v. Evans">Romer v. Evans</a> (1996)</li>

<li><a href="Obergefell_v._Hodges" title="Obergefell v. Hodges">Obergefell v. Hodges</a> (2015)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Alienage</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Patsone_v._Pennsylvania" title="Patsone v. Pennsylvania">Patsone v. Pennsylvania</a> (1914)</li>

<li><a href="Truax_v._Raich" title="Truax v. Raich">Truax v. Raich</a> (1915)</li>

<li>Heim v. McCall (1915)</li>

<li>Crane v. New York (1915)</li>

<li><a href="Terrace_v._Thompson" title="Terrace v. Thompson">Terrace v. Thompson</a> (1923)</li>

<li>Porterfield v. Webb (1923)</li>

<li><a href="Webb_v._O'Brien" title="Webb v. O'Brien">Webb v. O'Brien</a> (1923)</li>

<li>Frick v. Webb (1923)</li>

<li>Ohio ex rel. Clark v. Deckebach (1927)</li>

<li><a href="Takahashi_v._Fish_and_Game_Comm'n" class="mw-redirect" title="Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n">Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Hernandez_v._Texas" title="Hernandez v. Texas">Hernandez v. Texas</a> (1954)</li>

<li><a href="Graham_v._Richardson" title="Graham v. Richardson">Graham v. Richardson</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Sugarman_v._Dougall" title="Sugarman v. Dougall">Sugarman v. Dougall</a> (1973)</li>

<li>In re Griffiths (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Examining_Board_v._Flores_de_Otero" title="Examining Board v. Flores de Otero">Examining Board v. Flores de Otero</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="Nyquist_v._Mauclet" title="Nyquist v. Mauclet">Nyquist v. Mauclet</a> (1977)</li>

<li>Foley v. Connelie (1978)</li>

<li><a href="Ambach_v._Norwick" title="Ambach v. Norwick">Ambach v. Norwick</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="Cabell_v._Chavez-Salido" title="Cabell v. Chavez-Salido">Cabell v. Chavez-Salido</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Plyler_v._Doe" title="Plyler v. Doe">Plyler v. Doe</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Bernal_v._Fainter" title="Bernal v. Fainter">Bernal v. Fainter</a> (1984)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Residency</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Shapiro_v._Thompson" title="Shapiro v. Thompson">Shapiro v. Thompson</a> (1969)</li>

<li><a href="Arlington_County_Board_v._Richards" title="Arlington County Board v. Richards">Arlington County Board v. Richards</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Metropolitan_Life_Insurance_Co._v._Ward" title="Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward">Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward</a> (1985)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Other</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._Cruikshank" title="United States v. Cruikshank">United States v. Cruikshank</a> (1876)</li>

<li><a href="Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Co." title="Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.">Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.</a> (1886)</li>

<li>Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth (1928)</li>

<li><a href="Breedlove_v._Suttles" title="Breedlove v. Suttles">Breedlove v. Suttles</a> (1937)</li>

<li><a href="Skinner_v._Oklahoma" title="Skinner v. Oklahoma">Skinner v. Oklahoma</a> (1942)</li>

<li><a href="Oyama_v._California" title="Oyama v. California">Oyama v. California</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Oyler_v._Boles" title="Oyler v. Boles">Oyler v. Boles</a> (1962)</li>

<li><a href="Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board_of_Elections" title="Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections">Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections</a> (1966)</li>

<li>Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966)</li>

<li><a href="Levy_v._Louisiana" title="Levy v. Louisiana">Levy v. Louisiana</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="Williams_v._Rhodes" title="Williams v. Rhodes">Williams v. Rhodes</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="Oregon_v._Mitchell" title="Oregon v. Mitchell">Oregon v. Mitchell</a> (1970)</li>

<li><a href="Boddie_v._Connecticut" title="Boddie v. Connecticut">Boddie v. Connecticut</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Eisenstadt_v._Baird" title="Eisenstadt v. Baird">Eisenstadt v. Baird</a> (1972)</li>

<li>Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. (1973)</li>

<li><a href="San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez" title="San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez">San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Richardson_v._Ramirez" title="Richardson v. Ramirez">Richardson v. Ramirez</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas" title="Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas">Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Massachusetts_Board_of_Retirement_v._Murgia" title="Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia">Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia</a> (1976)</li>

<li>Trimble v. Gordon (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Zablocki_v._Redhail" title="Zablocki v. Redhail">Zablocki v. Redhail</a> (1978)</li>

<li><a href="New_York_City_Transit_Authority_v._Beazer" title="New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer">New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer</a> (1979)</li>

<li>Mills v. Habluetzel (1982)</li>

<li><a href="City_of_Cleburne_v._Cleburne_Living_Center%2C_Inc." title="City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.">City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.</a> (1985)</li>

<li>Clark v. Jeter (1988)</li>

<li>Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools (1988)</li>

<li><a href="Gregory_v._Ashcroft" title="Gregory v. Ashcroft">Gregory v. Ashcroft</a> (1991)</li>

<li><a href="Vacco_v._Quill" title="Vacco v. Quill">Vacco v. Quill</a> (1997)</li>

<li>Armour v. Indianapolis (2012)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd hlist" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="Enforcement_Clause235" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="Congressional_power_of_enforcement" title="Congressional power of enforcement">Enforcement Clause</a></div></th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Civil_Rights_Cases" title="Civil Rights Cases">Civil Rights Cases</a> (1883)</li>

<li><a href="Katzenbach_v._Morgan" title="Katzenbach v. Morgan">Katzenbach v. Morgan</a> (1966)</li>

<li><a href="Fitzpatrick_v._Bitzer" title="Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer">Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer</a> (1976)</li>

<li>Dellmuth v. Muth (1989)</li>

<li><a href="City_of_Boerne_v._Flores" title="City of Boerne v. Flores">City of Boerne v. Flores</a> (1997)</li>

<li><a href="Florida_Prepaid_Postsecondary_Education_Expense_Board_v._College_Savings_Bank" title="Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank">Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank</a> (1999)</li>

<li><a href="Kimel_v._Florida_Board_of_Regents" title="Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents">Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents</a> (2000)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Morrison" title="United States v. Morrison">United States v. Morrison</a> (2000)</li>

<li><a href="Board_of_Trustees_of_the_University_of_Alabama_v._Garrett" title="Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett">Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett</a> (2001)</li>

<li><a href="Nevada_Department_of_Human_Resources_v._Hibbs" title="Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs">Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs</a> (2003)</li>

<li><a href="Tennessee_v._Lane" title="Tennessee v. Lane">Tennessee v. Lane</a> (2004)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Georgia" title="United States v. Georgia">United States v. Georgia</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="Shelby_County_v._Holder" title="Shelby County v. Holder">Shelby County v. Holder</a> (2013)</li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="Gold_Clause_Cases" title="Gold Clause Cases">Gold Clause Cases</a> (1935)</li>

<li><a href="Trump_v._Anderson" title="Trump v. Anderson">Trump v. Anderson</a> (2024)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><div><div class="zim-footer">

This article is issued from <a class="external text" title="Last edited on 2025-06-02" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?title=Equal_Protection_Clause&oldid=1293529472">Wikipedia</a>. The text is available under <a class="external text" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0</a> unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

</div>

</div></div>

</div>

</main>

</div>

</body></html>