Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless requires equal protection under the laws of the federal government via reverse incorporation.
[128] Although the text of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Equal Protection Clause only against the states, the Supreme Court, since Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), has applied the clause against the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under a doctrine called "reverse incorporation". [133] [134]
The United States Constitution and its amendments comprise hundreds of clauses which outline the functioning of the United States Federal Government, the political relationship between the states and the national government, and affect how the United States federal court system interprets the law.
Whereas incorporation applies the Bill of Rights to the states through the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, equality before the law is required under the laws of the federal government by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [41] For example, in Bolling v.
Interstate commerce clause prohibits segregation at bus stop restaurant Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States: 1964 379 U.S. 241 upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Loving v. Virginia: 1967 388 U.S. 1 banned anti-miscegenation laws: Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education: 1969 396 U.S. 1218
To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be said as to the positive values of avoiding ...
The word "laws" is used by the Constitution with two different meanings, but "equal protection" is only meaningful when applied to one of those meanings. Two meanings of 'law' in Constitution ...
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that a prima facie race-neutral law administered in a prejudicial manner infringed upon the right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.