At first glance at the Constitution’s text, it would appear not. There is no general Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution applying to the federalgovernment—although there are a lot of clauses requiring equal treatment in specific situations. The Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is general in nature, but it applies explicitly only to stategovernments.Details
In the wake of the Court’s decision, some cynical political operators have tried to provoke hysteria among the ignorant. To a certain extent they have succeeded: One citizen asked me recently about “that decision that took away our right to vote.”
Of course, the decision takes away no one’s right to vote.Details
U.S. v. Windsor—the case in which the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—is a carcass from which constitutional flesh-pickers will feast for a very long time. It is one of those cases like Dred Scott v. Sandford or Roe v. Wade that is so uncandid and so laden with gibberish that not even those who like the result can defend the Court’s language with a straight face.
The problems begin with the fact that the case was a collusive one—that is, both Ms. Windsor and the federal government were on the same side. The primary defense of DOMA was not presented by a party at all, but by a majority of Congress acting as “Friends of the Court.” Of course, non-parties do not have the same sort of stake in a case that parties do, which is why the Constitution bars collusive suits from federal court.Details
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has made it tougher for state universities to run their ethnic spoils systems. But not tough enough.
First, the background:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to extend “equal protection of the laws” to their citizens. The primary goal of the Equal Protection Clause was to stop states from discriminating against racial and ethnic groups. But the actual wording of the Clause covers more than just racial and ethnic discrimination.Details
Rob Natelson writes: “There is little more heart-rending than the sorrow of a child.
The sorrow of a child—and of her adoptive parents—created one of the Supreme Court’s more compelling cases this term. I was happy to be cited extensively in one of the opinions. And, much more importantly, happy that the Court acted to minimize the sorrow of the child and of her adoptive parents.”Details