Also known as: equal protections · equal-protection · equal protection clause · equal protection doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional guarantee that government must treat similarly situated persons the same. The guarantee requires that any classification drawn by law bear a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose unless the classification affects a fundamental right or employs a suspect classification, in which case heightened scrutiny applies.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Erika Echevarria moved to the county six months before applying for a newly built mixed-income unit. The city ordinance required ten years of prior residency. City officials rejected her application solely on that ground even though she met every income and employment criterion.
Enzo Eastwood faced trial for a serious offense. The prosecutor used peremptory challenges to remove every prospective juror who shared Eastwood's race while leaving similarly situated jurors of other races on the panel. Defense counsel made a prima facie showing of racial motivation and the prosecutor offered no race-neutral explanation.
Elliot Edmonds owned a single corner lot surrounded by single-family homes. The city council rezoned only his parcel to allow a large commercial development inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Neighboring owners received no similar relief and the change served no public purpose beyond benefiting Edmonds.
Eric Espinoza, an unmarried adult, sought to purchase contraceptives at a pharmacy. State law permitted distribution only to married couples. The pharmacist refused the sale on that basis alone, forcing Espinoza to forgo the product or travel out of state.
Emma Erickson and Elijah Edwards, a couple of different races, applied for a marriage license in their home state. Officials denied the license solely because of the racial difference even though both applicants satisfied every other statutory requirement.
Everest Holdings relocated its operations and several employees moved with the company. State welfare rules imposed a one-year residency requirement before new arrivals could receive full benefits. The employees, otherwise eligible, received only the lower benefits from their prior state during that period.
Racial classifications receive strict scrutiny and survive only if narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest. The Equal Protection Clause therefore invalidates laws that draw racial lines without such justification.
Supporting sources
Yes. The clause forbids the use of peremptory strikes to exclude jurors on the basis of race. A prima facie showing shifts the burden to the striking party to offer a race-neutral explanation, after which the court determines whether purposeful discrimination occurred.
…speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause,…
…couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause
…under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection
…court in which the right should be determined was conferred upon the non-citizen.[^maj-9] Thus, the doctrine rendered impossible equal protection
…administrative remedy before defending this prosecution on the ground that the single-family occupancy ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause
Supporting sources
A rezoning that singles out one parcel or small area for special treatment inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and lacking a legitimate public purpose may be struck down as arbitrary or as a denial of equal protection.
Supporting sources
No. Such requirements penalize the exercise of the right to travel and deny equal protection to new residents who are otherwise eligible. The state's interest in protecting its treasury does not justify the classification.
Supporting sources
Yes. The right of privacy belongs to the individual, not merely to the marital unit. A law that withholds contraceptives from unmarried persons while granting them to married couples therefore denies equal protection.
Supporting sources