How has the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause of the US Constitution?

The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution states that no person or group of people should be discriminated against based on their race, color, national origin, sex, or other characteristics. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that all individuals should be treated equally under the law. In the 1968 case Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause. This decision was a landmark case in civil rights law as it established that laws discriminating on the basis of race are unconstitutional and that marriage is a fundamental right. In 1996, the Supreme Court decided Romer v Evans, ruling that a state law in Colorado that prohibited towns and cities from passing ordinances that protected LGBT individuals from discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause. This case established that the government must treat all individuals equally and cannot pass laws that specifically target certain groups of people. In 2015, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v Hodges, ruling that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry and that state laws denying same-sex couples that right are unconstitutional. This decision established that same-sex couples must be treated the same as heterosexual couples and cannot be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Overall, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution to mean that individuals must be treated equally under the law and that the government must not pass laws that discriminate against certain groups of people.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the equal protection clause of the US Constitution?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts