---
title: "Equal Protection Clause"
type: Legal Rule
source: https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/equal-protection-clause
---

# Equal Protection Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying any person equal protection of the laws. The applicable level of judicial scrutiny depends on the classification used: strict scrutiny for suspect classes, intermediate for quasi-suspect, and rational basis for all others.

## Definition

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (Bolling v. Sharpe, 1954), the Equal Protection Clause is the primary constitutional vehicle for challenging government classifications that treat different groups of people differently.

The level of judicial scrutiny applied depends on the type of classification at issue. Strict scrutiny applies to suspect classifications based on race, national origin, or alienage (in most contexts), and to classifications that burden fundamental rights. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the classification is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Intermediate scrutiny applies to quasi-suspect classifications based on gender or legitimacy. Under intermediate scrutiny, the classification must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis review applies to all other classifications, including those based on age, wealth, disability, and sexual orientation (though this is evolving). Under rational basis, the classification need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

A critical threshold issue is whether the classification is facially discriminatory or facially neutral. If the law is facially neutral but has a disparate impact, the challenger must prove discriminatory intent or purpose under Washington v. Davis (1976) and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977). Disparate impact alone is insufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny.

## Elements

- Identify the government classification or differential treatment
- Determine whether the classification is based on a suspect class (race, national origin, alienage), quasi-suspect class (gender, legitimacy), or non-suspect class
- Apply the appropriate level of scrutiny: strict, intermediate, or rational basis
- For facially neutral laws with disparate impact, the challenger must demonstrate discriminatory purpose or intent
- The burden of justification shifts to the government under strict or intermediate scrutiny
- Under rational basis, the challenger bears the burden and any conceivable legitimate purpose suffices

## Key Case

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

## Landmark Cases

| Name | Citation | Significance |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Brown v. Board of Education | 347 U.S. 483 (1954) | Held that racial segregation in public schools violates equal protection, overruling Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine |
| Craig v. Boren | 429 U.S. 190 (1976) | Established intermediate scrutiny for gender classifications, requiring a substantial relationship to an important government interest |
| Washington v. Davis | 426 U.S. 229 (1976) | Held that disparate impact alone is insufficient to establish an equal protection violation; discriminatory purpose must be shown |
| Grutter v. Bollinger | 539 U.S. 306 (2003) | Upheld race-conscious admissions under strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest in educational diversity |
| Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard | 600 U.S. 181 (2023) | Effectively ended race-conscious admissions programs, holding that Harvard's and UNC's programs violated the Equal Protection Clause |

## Exam Tips

- Always identify the classification and the appropriate level of scrutiny before applying the test -- this is the most important step
- For facially neutral laws, remember Washington v. Davis: disparate impact alone is not enough; you must show discriminatory intent
- Know the burden of proof: under strict and intermediate scrutiny, the government bears the burden; under rational basis, the challenger does
- Watch for equal protection issues disguised as due process questions and vice versa -- Obergefell, for example, relied on both

## Common Mistakes

- Applying strict scrutiny to gender classifications -- gender receives intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny
- Forgetting that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (reverse incorporation from Bolling v. Sharpe)
- Assuming disparate impact alone triggers heightened scrutiny without proof of discriminatory purpose

## Mnemonic Or Memory Aid

SIR: Strict for race/national origin, Intermediate for gender/legitimacy, Rational basis for everything else

## Related Rules

- due-process-clause-substantive
- due-process-clause-procedural
- privileges-and-immunities-clause-art-iv
- privileges-or-immunities-clause-14th-amendment

---
Source: [Equal Protection Clause — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/equal-protection-clause)