Equal Protection

This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.

Writing Template

Issue

I: The issue is whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating a class of persons differently in a manner that infringes upon their rights.

Analysis

R: The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Fifth Amendment extends this protection to federal actions through the Due Process Clause.

1. Fundamental Rights or Classification

R: If (1) the law implicates a fundamental right or a suspect classification, it is subject to strict scrutiny. (a) Fundamental rights include the right to vote, the right to travel interstate, the right to marry, the right to procreate, the right to access the judicial process, and certain privacy rights, such as the right to make decisions about contraception, family relationships, child-rearing, and abortion. (b) Suspect classifications include race, ethnicity, national origin, and, under state law, alienage, unless the classification is connected to federal immigration policies. For (2) quasi-suspect classifications, which include gender or illegitimacy, the standard of review is intermediate scrutiny. For (3) all other cases, the standard of review is rational basis.

A: Here, the law concerns a [fundamental right/suspect classification/quasi-suspect classification/neither a fundamental right nor relevant classification] because [support with facts].

C: Therefore, the level of scrutiny that should be applied is [strict scrutiny/intermediate scrutiny/rational basis].

2. Proving Discrimination (Strict or Intermediate Scrutiny Only)

R: To trigger strict or intermediate scrutiny, the challenger must show discriminatory intent by the government. Disparate impact alone is insufficient. Discriminatory intent can be demonstrated through: (1) Facial discrimination, where law explicitly creates distinctions between classes; (2) Discriminatory application, where the law is applied in a manner that disproportionately impacts certain groups; and (3) Discriminatory motive, where the law is neutral on its face but was enacted or applied with an intent to discriminate.

A: Here, discriminatory intent may be shown [facially, in application, or through motive] because [support with facts].

C: Therefore, the government [acted/did not act] with discriminatory intent.

3a. Strict Scrutiny

R: If the law implicates a fundamental right, the action is unconstitutional unless it is (1) narrowly tailored to achieve a (2) compelling government interest. A government action is (1) narrowly tailored if it cannot achieve the government’s interest by less restrictive or less discriminatory means. A (2) compelling government interest is one that is necessary to protect critical public policies or goals, such as national security, public health, or fundamental rights. (Because strict scrutiny is intentionally stringent, few government actions satisfy this standard.)

A: Here, [apply rules to facts].

C: Therefore, the state action [satisfies/does not satisfy] strict scrutiny.

3b. Intermediate Scrutiny

R: Under intermediate scrutiny, a law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can prove (1) the law advances important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech and (2a) does not burden substantially more speech than necessary or (2b) is narrowly tailored to further those interests.

A: Here, [apply rule to facts].

C: Therefore, the state action [satisfies/does not satisfy] intermediate scrutiny.

3c. Rational Basis Review

R: If a law does not implicate a fundamental right, it is presumed constitutional, and the burden of proof shifts to the challenger to demonstrate that it fails the rational basis test. Under this standard, the law is constitutional if it (1) advances a legitimate government interest and (2) is rationally related to achieving that interest. Legitimate government interests include public safety, public health, economic regulation, and general welfare.

A: Here, [apply rules to facts].

C: Therefore, the state action [satisfies/does not satisfy] rational basis review.

Conclusion

C: Therefore, the law [violates/does not violate] the Equal Protection Clause.

Usage Notes

JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.

The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.

The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.

The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.

Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.

Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].