Also known as: protection clauses · equal protection clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional command in the Fourteenth Amendment requiring states to treat similarly situated persons alike. It prohibits intentional discrimination without adequate justification and subjects classifications based on race or gender to heightened scrutiny.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pierce Patterson, an Asian American defendant, faced trial for embezzlement. The prosecutor used peremptories to remove nearly all Asian American finance professionals from the panel while retaining similarly situated non-Asian candidates. Defense counsel objected and showed the pattern. The court required the prosecutor to supply race-neutral reasons for each strike.
Paula Pierce, an unmarried woman, sought contraceptives from a pharmacy. State law barred distribution to unmarried persons but allowed it for married couples. Pierce challenged the restriction. The court held that the distinction violated equal protection because the privacy right belongs to the individual regardless of marital status.
Portia Price moved to a new state and applied for welfare benefits. The state denied her application solely because she had not resided there for one year. Price sued, arguing the rule deterred interstate travel by the indigent. The court struck down the durational requirement as violating equal protection and the right to travel.
Pavel Petrov, convicted of a minor offense, faced mandatory sterilization under state law. He challenged the statute as applied to him. The court held that the right to procreate is fundamental and that the classification lacked sufficient justification under equal protection.
Paul Peterson operated a restaurant inside a publicly owned building leased from the city. The city received rent and shared profits while the restaurant refused service to non-white patrons. Piper Patel, denied service, sued. The court found the symbiotic relationship made the discrimination state action subject to equal protection.
A defendant must first establish a prima facie case by demonstrating a pattern of strikes that supports an inference of racial discrimination. Once shown, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to offer race-neutral explanations that the court then evaluates for credibility.
Yes. The clause requires that the privacy right to decide whether to bear or beget a child inhere in the individual, married or single. A statute permitting distribution to married couples while denying it to unmarried persons therefore violates equal protection.
No. Such requirements penalize the exercise of the constitutional right to travel and rest on the impermissible purpose of protecting the state treasury by discouraging entry of indigent persons. The clause therefore forbids the denial of benefits to otherwise eligible new residents.
The right to procreate is fundamental. A compulsory sterilization scheme that classifies offenders for forced sterilization therefore violates both equal protection and substantive due process because it lacks adequate justification for infringing the fundamental right.
Private discrimination becomes state action when the facility is located in a publicly owned building, the state receives rent or profits from the operation, and a symbiotic relationship exists between the state and the discriminatory practice. The clause then applies directly to the conduct.