Strict scrutiny

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was at first created to protect against racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court later expanded the clause to also providing equal treatment amongst different races. The clause says, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.) A person could not be discriminated upon solely because of his or her race and if the law treated a

in the case Craig v. Boren. The decision struck down a statute that allowed women over the age of eighteen to purchase beer but only men over the age of twenty-one. Using this intermediate scrutiny, the Court has invalidated gender segregation across the board. However, while this heightened level of scrutiny has drastically helped women, it has not been equal in its effect on men. Since Craig, the Court has upheld a requirement that only men register for the draft (Rostker v. Goldberg) and a statutory

This makes it difficult for courts in defining the lines of equal treatment based on gender. (PrisonerResource) In Craig v. Boren, the court rejected strict scrutiny as a standard in equal protection claims based on gender (craigvboren). Something particular to prison inmates seeking equal protection relief, is that they must demonstrate that "there is no rational relation between the dissimilar treatment

as having English as a second language and coming from an underprivileged background, that assisted minority applicants much more than non-minority candidates. In 2004, the University of Texas brought forth a proposal that sought to reestablish the direct consideration of race in the holistic admission process. UT’s reasoning for this re-introduction was to increase the presence of minority students in smaller “classes of participatory size” and to correct the demographic imbalance between the school

admissions programs; but this could only be done under strict judicial scrutiny, and with narrowly tailored provisions. Two separate questions stem from this: What does “narrowly tailoring” mean in light of the 14th Amendment? And how can other universities implement admission standards that are constitutionally permissible? Short Answer Grutter and Gratz established that race could be a factor in the admissions process. But it must pass strict-scrutiny. At first blush, this might appear discriminatory

Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers +MEASHIA Search Gmail COMPOSE Labels Inbox (5,444) Starred Important Sent Mail Drafts (9) Circles [Imap]/Drafts [Imap]/Outbox [Imap]/Sent [Imap]/Trash (96) Notes Personal Sent Messages Travel More Chat MEASHIA GLENN Idle Arizona Slim Idle morganh1980@gmail.com Offline smithdesauguste@gmail.com 19549817123 5gw5k-4524026260@sale.craigslist.org 5wjnv-4786966687@sale.craigslist.org atreyu Darbonne, Anita Kosik, Alison mrhwilliam84@gmail.com

discriminated against because of the race quota policy in place, thus affirming that using race quotas is not allowed. The court did decide though that race and ethnic background could be used in admissions when properly applied. Powell’s standard of strict scrutiny, established two criteria used in later cases: a “narrowly tailored” affirmative action plan and a compelling government interest. One of the most recent Supreme Court cases before Fisher was Grutter v. Bollinger. In this particular case, a

• Constitutional Speech (Personal and Corporate) * (personal); afforded highest protection by the Courts. Balance must be struck between a government’s obligation to protect its citizens versus a citizen’s right to speech. In other words, if government suppresses speech it must be to protect the citizens. EX. Don’t yell fire in a crowded area. See below. * If restriction is content neutral, restrictions must target some societal problem – not to primarily suppress the message.

Because the Constitution i s rooted in civil republicanism, its clauses must reflect accompanying notions of civic virtue . In “Naked Preferences and the Constitution,” Professor Cass R. Sunstein identifies a unifying theme across the various clauses of the Constitution: the prohibition of “the distribution of resources or opportunities to one group rather than another solely on the ground that those favored have exercised the raw political power to obtain what they want.” Sunstein calls this

Affirmative Action and Higher Education   Two people stand in a room looking at a vibrant painting and receive a totally different image. This is something we all realize can happen. It is our different perspectives that make us valuable too each other. When trying to solve a problem or create a new idea, we need each other to bring forth considerations and concepts that would never occur otherwise. This concept is something most of us grasp in theory, yet it never ceases to confound and confuse