Protections rooted in 14 th amendment: -Equal protection under law: gov’t must ensure freedom from unreasonable discrimination -Due process: treatment by gov’t regarding issues of life, liberty, or property must be reasonable, fair, & follow legal procedures & rules How do we define equality?

Procedural due process: when restricting rights, gov’t must proceed by proper methods (restricts how) Substantive due process: content of law must be fair & reasonable when restricting rights (restricts what)

Originally left to states to determine 14 th – citizenship clause: all persons “born or naturalized” Naturalization requirements set by Congress, admin by courts or INS Can have dual citizenship in U.S. and select other countries

Rights of U.S. Citizenship Many of most impt rights come from state citizenship (est by residence) Rights of citizenship often tested in wartime Rights of Aliens 14 th guarantees all persons due process & equal protection States can restrict aliens from some privileges

14 th, equal protection clause: no state can deny person equal protection of laws – Used due process of 5 th to impose on nat’l gov’t Treating classes/groups of ppl differently constitutional only if reasonable

III. Strict Scrutiny: classification is based on “compelling interest” & no other way to accomplish goal; burden on gov’t Used to test suspect classifications: where ppl have been deliberately treated unequally – Race, national origin … Also for laws infringing on fundamental rights (if guaranteed by Constitution) – Religion, speech … Most laws subject to strict scrutiny are struck down

Govt’s InterestLaw’s Relation to that Interest Areas of classification Strict Scrutiny (inherently suspect) State interest must be compelling Must be necessary to achieve the purpose – “narrowly tailored” Race, ethnicity Inter- mediate Scrutiny Must be genuine and important to achieving gov’t interest Must be substantially related to achieving that interest Gender Rational Basis (reason- ableness) Needs to be legitimate gov’t interest. Can be hypothetical – need not be actual Must be rationally related or non- arbitrary Other (age, wealth, etc)

Age: not suspect classification, but Congress sensitive to “gray power” – Federal employment protection against age discrimination Sexual orientation: not automatically treated as a suspect class

Post Civil War= 13 th, 14 th, 15 th am. passed; Congress passed civil rights laws – Courts overturned many Late 1870s: Reconstruction ends, nat’l govt backs off; segregation/white supremacy in S – Leads to beginning of “Great Migration” Late 1930s, WWII: African Americans begin challenging segregation in courts Brown v. Board of Education (1954): desegregated public schools

Significant resistance to integration in S 1960s: civil rights demonstrations; race rioting throughout U.S. 1964: LBJ enacts Civil Rights Act – anti- discrimination law 1965: Voting Rights ActVoting Rights Act Since 60s/70s, less political focus on civil rights legislation

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II: no discrimination in places of “public accommodation” Title VI: any higher education school or institution will have federal funding withdrawn if it discriminates on “race, color, national origin”, gender, age, or disability Title VII: can’t discriminate in employment on basis of “race, color, national origin, religion, sex” Now includes physical handicaps, veterans, or ppl over 40; Some exceptions!

Hispanic Americans: now largest minority group in U.S. Racial discrimination in employment, housing, etc Discrimination against immigrants present -Controversy over how to deal with illegal immigrants

Native Americans: legacy of forced removal and assimilation efforts, continuing discrimination and poverty -Since mid-1900s, gov’t has extended more rights & protections to Indians Asian-Americans: all face(d) significant discrimination (employment, housing, etc) Arab Americans & Muslims: since 9/11, increased # of bias-related assaults, etc -Issues with treatment of suspected terrorists

Early 1900s: vigilant women’s suffrage movement 1920: 19 th am. ratified (South opposed – worried about Congressional interference) From 20s-60s, prevailing paternalism/protectionism in laws regarding women Equal Rights Amendment unsuccessfulunsuccessful

Gender discrimination is given intermediate level of scrutiny More women in workforce/out of home has slowly changed public opinion Increasing protection against gender discrimination, harassment in workplace More women in military today, but still ineligible for the draft

Age classifications –> rational basis test Some discrimination prohibited; others accepted as reasonable People with Disabilities Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990; rehabilitation laws Gay & Lesbian Rights –> discrimination in hiring, housing, education, etc Recently: some states legalizing same-sex marriage; DADT repealed; SCOTUS cases

Purpose: increase representation from a group that has historically been excluded/discriminated against Important Court cases: – University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) – Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) – Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Today, some states have done away with affirmative action programs – SCOTUS hearing challenges this termchallenges

Many legal barriers to equal participation have been removed Cause of growth in federal scope & authority Criticism: much of civil rights progress has benefitted middle-class, not growing “underclass” in urban areas Some say socioeconomic divisions are more pertinent than racial differences Others say need to revive civil rights enforcement, attack residential segregation

Mandatory school busing implemented to overcome effects of racial segregation Segregation: de jure vs. de facto Since 90s, less support for court- enforced desegregation efforts Back to segregation? Back to segregation Other efforts …