Equal Protection of the Law Liam Penland

Equal Protection of the Law (14th Amendment) Each state is required to provide equal protection under the law to all people under its jurisdiction. The equal protection clause is designed to provide equal application of the law to all citizens. The clause protects civil rights by denying states the ability to discriminate.

Equal Protection of the Law (14th Amendment) A question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated generally arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. If a law discriminates between one group of people over another, the government must have a rational basis for doing so.

Korematsu v. United States 1944

Case Background President Franklin Roosevelt made an executive order during WWII that gave the military authority to put people of Japanese descent into internment camps regardless of citizenship to protect the country from espionage. Fred Korematsu was charged and convicted of not reporting to the internment camps.

Decision and Consequences The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the United States stating that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. In 1988, Congress issued a formal apology for the suffering the internment order had caused, and in 1989 authorized reparations of $20,000 to each of the approximately 60,000 survivors of the internment camps, many of which were farmers who were forced to sell their land at a fraction of what it was actually worth.

Decision and Consequences 3 of the judges dissented in the case stating reasons like: Korematsu was punished just because his ancestors were Japanese, internment camps were another name for prison, and the internment was based on half- truths that have been directed at Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices.

Decision and Consequences In 1998 Korematsu was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 2011 Solicitor General Neal Katyal admitted that one of his predecessors had hid a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence that concluded Japanese Americans on the West Coast did not pose a military threat.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Case Background Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. Shortly thereafter the Lovings returned to Virginia. The couple was then charged with violating the state's law which banned inter- racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail.

Decision and Consequences The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loving 9- 0, rejecting Virginia's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both races. The court also ruled that the case violated the Equal Protection Clause. The decision helped get rid of the same law in the remaining 16 states.

Outcome Since the decision there has been an increase in interracial marriages in the U.S. June 12th each year is known as Loving Day

Works Cited "Equal Protection." LII. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar Konkoly, Toni. "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 23 Mar "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 22 March "KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 23 Mar Savage, David G. "U.S. Official Cites Misconduct in Japanese American Internment Cases."Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 May Web. 23 Mar