How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified in 1868 and states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to guarantee equal protection for all individuals within a state. This clause has been used to strike down laws and actions of state governments that discriminate against a particular group. For instance, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Palmore v. Sidoti (1984), the Supreme Court held that a law allowing the transfer of custody of a child without an inquiry into a person’s race violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has also interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit states from denying individuals certain fundamental rights. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court found that a state’s attempt to limit a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy violated the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit states from discriminating against certain groups and denying individuals certain fundamental rights.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts