Equal Protection- Fundamental Interests

Front 1

What are Fundamental Interests under Equal Protection?

Back 1

When equal protection is used if the government discriminates among people, as to exercise a fundamental interest. Law discriminates as to the ability of a person to exercise fundamental interest. SC has used EP to protect fundamental interests like voting (Bush v. Gore, Harper v. Virginia), and interstate travel (Shapiro v. Thompson).

This approach was based on the Court's desire to avoid DP after Lochner era. The effect is the same, if the SC finds a right or interest as fundamental under EP, the Court will apply strict scrutiny.

Front 2

What are the three Equal Protection-fundamental interest identified by the Court for purposes of Equal Protection?

Back 2

1. Right to vote. 2. Right to access judicial process. 3. Right to interstate migration

The court may protect the rights under either EP or DP.

San Antonio v. Rodriguez forecloses the addition of fundamental rights solely into equal protection.

Front 3

San Antonio v. Rodriguez. Author, Meaning and Holding

Back 3

Powell. It signaled an end to the possibility of finding new fundamental interest in equal protection. Plaintiffs argued that disparity in funding of schools violated EP against poor. Powell found that (1) Poverty is not a suspect classification, thus RB applies, and (2) Education is not fundamental right.

Front 4

San Antonio v. Rodriguez. Reasoning

Back 4

Powell tried to bring categorical order into the EP analysis by limiting suspect classifications to (1) race, and (2) alienage. Additionally, Powell said that there are only 3 fundamental interests (voting, criminal process, and interstate travel). No new fundamental interests can be added based on societal importance, unless recognized under constitution.

Front 5

San Antonio/Plyler/Romer/Cleburne

Back 5

Plyler rejects San Antonio v. Rodriguez' categorical approach. Plyler applied intermediate standard because illegal status is not suspect classification, and education is not fundamental right. It considered the fact that the law penalized children. Plyler is similar to Romer where the court abandons categorical approach and applies RB with bite. So argument would be that statute is arbitrary, irrational, but also with underlying animus or discriminatory purpose to get Romer and Cleburne result. Cleburne suggests that court is committed to San Antonio v. Rodrigez categorical approach, but has a sympathetic approach by applying RB.