How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause?

The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in many ways. The clause states that no state should “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the clause several ways to provide equal protection under the law. In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of “separate but equal.” This doctrine stipulated that while states may offer different services or facilities for different groups, those services and facilities must be of equal quality and not discriminatory. This led to widespread segregation in the US, which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court has also interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause to protect other fundamental rights. In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not outlaw the use of contraceptives, as it violated a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. More recently, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the rights of LGBTQ individuals. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples may not be denied marriage licenses, as this violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court has also ruled that employers may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Overall, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause in many ways to protect the rights of citizens and ensure equality under the law.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts