Purpose Of The Equal Protection Clause

Introduction
The Equal Protection Clause can be argued to be one of the most important rights a citizen has in the United States. It is one of the techniques someone can use to combat discrimination by a law, action, or procedure. However, an equal protection challenge can be just that, a challenge. This clause is much more complex than perceived. When brought before the court, it is decided on what level of scrutiny it will be examined. As equal protection is part of a list of rights for free citizens, does it apply to incarcerated citizens? Should there be differential treatment to the Equal Protection Clause when applied to incarcerated persons rather than free citizens? According to precedent, the Equal Protection Clause does apply to incarcerated
citizens while other rights may be limited or restricted.
Furthermore, because the Equal Protection Clause applies to both free citizens and incarcerated persons, one can examine how specific groups within the correctional institutions use the Equal Protection Clause and if level of scrutiny differs within the groups. When measuring the level of scrutiny used by the Court for discrimination in prisons based on gender, one should look at the Court's discernment on other issues (such as race or age), look further at how these issues were decided within the prison system, and then see where gender discrimination falls within the other issues. Through careful and deliberate examination, one may find that while gender discrimination does not receive as much scrutiny as race, it is still viewed with some level of scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, but it is also largely seen as used for safety precautions and medical reasons.
Equal Protection
Before determining how the Equal Protection Clause can be challenged in court, one must understand the basics and purpose of the clause.
The Equal Protection Clause is found in both the 14th and 5th Amendment in the Constitution. Both amendments prohibit parties from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. The key difference in the amendments is the party that is prohibited from taking discriminatory action. The 14th Amendment refers to the states while the 5th Amendment refers to the federal government. The purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to constrain a state to govern neutrally and not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are unrelated to a legitimate governmental objective. Some factors that can make an Equal Protection Clause analysis more challenging include: when an individual is discriminated against because of his/her unique positions, when a law favors a group rather than discriminating a group, and when states redraw district
lines.
When looking at an Equal Protection Clause issue, one can break it down into three questions.
"What classification does a government action create?" Two factors are necessary to implicate an equal protection clause, discriminatory intent and effect. If only one of these factors are present and not the other then the law or action will survive the equal protection challenge. One exception to unconstitutional classifications is entities. "States are not forbid from treating different entities differently." Secondly, "What level of scrutiny applies to a classification?" There are three levels of scrutiny the court uses when examining cases, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis test. The strict scrutiny test is used when a "law is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest." This is when the classification is "no broader than absolutely necessary." Strict scrutiny is used whenever a law is aimed at a "suspect class" or burdens one's right to exercise a "fundamental right." A "suspect class" includes people on the basis of race of national origin. A "fundamental right" includes but is not limited to the rights of freedom of speech, the right to marry, the right to vote and the right to travel. The second level of scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, is less meticulous than strict scrutiny. Intermediate scrutiny is when "statutory classification is substantially related to a legitimate government objective." Intermediate scrutiny addresses the
"quasi-suspect class." This class is "not entirely politically powerless, but traditionally lacks substantial political power." Examples of the "quasi-suspect class" are women and children born out of wedlock. The lowest level of scrutiny is the rational basis test. This is when the individual challenging the law, not the government, must demonstrate how the classification is not reasonably related to some rational purpose. One is able to successfully make an equal protection claim by the rational basis test by either showing that the "purpose is illegitimate, arbitrary, or capricious, or that the law cannot possibly advance it." For the challenge to fail, the government must simply show that the law advances any government purpose. This test is also used when a classification does not fall into another category. (Wex Legal Dictionary – Cornell)