The 14th Amendment: equal protection, due process and applying rights to the states

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Card A. Barron v. Baltimore (1833), exact words: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.” Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (1868), Section 1, part, exact words: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), exact words: “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”

2. 1.

   Esme reads Card A: Barron (1833), the Fourteenth Amendment's due process words, and Gideon (1963). Which statement links the three?

   • Barron saw no words reaching states; the Fourteenth added such words, and Gideon used them
   • Barron and Gideon both concerned a lawyer for a poor defendant, decided under the same amendment
   • Barron approved of states ignoring rights, so Gideon had to reverse the Constitution's own words
   • Gideon applied the Fourteenth Amendment's due process words to the Sixth Amendment's national reach

3. Use this

   Card C. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), exact words: due process requires weighing “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”, “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” and “the Government's interest”. Goss v. Lopez (1975), exact words: “Longer suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.” Card D (made up). The State of Pine ends a family's monthly food assistance on the first of the month after a computer finds a mismatch in its records. The family gets no notice and no chance to answer before the benefit stops. The State says the benefit is small and the check is automatic.

4. 2.

   Card D: a State ends a family's food assistance with no notice. Ren applies the three factors of Card C. Which weighing is most reasonable?

   • Goss decides it, since Goss requires a hearing before any government benefit can end
   • The family's interest in food is high, an automatic check risks error, and notice costs the State little
   • Mathews decides it, since disability payments and food assistance are the same kind of benefit
   • The State's interest wins, since the benefit is small and the check is automatic and saves the State money

5. Use this

   Card I (written for this sheet). Student A says Goss and Mathews contradict each other: Goss requires a hearing before a short suspension, while Mathews allows benefits to end before a hearing. Card C. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), exact words: due process requires weighing “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”, “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” and “the Government's interest”. Goss v. Lopez (1975), exact words: “Longer suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.” Card H (summary in our words). Mathews v. Eldridge held that no hearing was needed before disability payments end, after weighing the three factors. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) had required a hearing before welfare payments end. In Mathews the Court said eligibility for disability payments is not based on financial need, so the private interest is likely less than for welfare. Two justices dissented in Mathews.

6. 3.

   Student A says Goss and Mathews contradict each other. Tala reads Cards C, H and I. Which reply is strongest?

   • They cannot be compared, since one concerns students in schools and the other adult benefit payments
   • Mathews narrowed Goss, since Mathews came later and set a rule for due process cases generally
   • They contradict, since Goss required a hearing and Mathews allowed benefits to end without one
   • No: both weigh interest, risk of error and burden, so different situations can need different process

7. Use this

   Card E. Civil Rights Cases (1883), exact words: “Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, exact words: “No State shall make or enforce any law”. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) concerned public schools run by states. Card B. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), majority: laws requiring separation “do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other”. Brown v. Board of Education (1954), exact words: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Brown was decided 9 to 0; Plessy 7 to 1, with Justice Brewer not taking part.

8. 4.

   A student says Brown contradicts the Civil Rights Cases, since one reached race and the other did not. Jun reads Cards E and B. Which reply is strongest?

   • Yes, since Brown overruled the Civil Rights Cases and so reached private acts as well
   • Yes, since Brown was unanimous and the 1883 case was 8 to 1, so the later vote replaced the earlier
   • No, since the Civil Rights Cases and Brown both concerned railways run by private companies
   • No: the 1883 case concerned private acts, and Brown concerned public schools run by states

9. Use this

   Card F. Reed v. Reed (1971): a classification “must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation”. Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955): “the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional.” Card G (written for this sheet). Reading X: incorporation was a faithful reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, because its authors wrote words aimed at the states. Reading Y: incorporation went beyond the amendment's words, because “due process of law” does not list specific rights.

10. 5.

    Card F: Reed requires a fair and substantial relation, Lee Optical allows an economic law that is not perfectly consistent. Pia asks what explains the different stringency.

    • Lee Optical applies to sex preferences too, since it speaks of a rational way to correct an evil
    • The classification differs: an economic rule gets deference, a preference by sex a closer look
    • The years differ, since Reed came in 1971 and Lee Optical in 1955, so the newer ruling is stricter
    • Reed was wrong and Lee Optical right, since a law may need no relation to its aims

11. Use this

    Card G (written for this sheet). Reading X: incorporation was a faithful reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, because its authors wrote words aimed at the states. Reading Y: incorporation went beyond the amendment's words, because “due process of law” does not list specific rights. Card A. Barron v. Baltimore (1833), exact words: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.” Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (1868), Section 1, part, exact words: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), exact words: “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.”

12. 6.

    Reading X: incorporation faithfully reads the amendment. Reading Y: it goes beyond the words. Noah reads Cards G and A. Which fact supports X more than Y?

    • Barron rested on the lack of words reaching states, and the Fourteenth later added words aimed at states
    • The Fourteenth Amendment names the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel, so Gideon applied the text as written
    • The Fourteenth Amendment's due process words do not list specific rights such as a lawyer or a jury
    • Gideon was unanimous, so incorporation must be a faithful reading of the amendment
13. 7.

    Using Cards G and A, Luz asks which fact supports Y more than X.

    • Gideon was a state case, so it shows incorporation went too far in reaching a state
    • Card A's due process words do not list rights such as a lawyer, so choosing them is interpretation
    • Barron refused to apply the amendments to states, so incorporation had to be wrong, since Barron came first
    • The words “No State” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment, so the words aim at states

14. Use this

    Card B. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), majority: laws requiring separation “do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other”. Brown v. Board of Education (1954), exact words: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Brown was decided 9 to 0; Plessy 7 to 1, with Justice Brewer not taking part. Card E. Civil Rights Cases (1883), exact words: “Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, exact words: “No State shall make or enforce any law”. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) concerned public schools run by states.

15. 8.

    “Brown overruled Plessy on railways too,” says Zee. Using Cards B and E, what do the cards show?

    • Brown overruled Plessy's whole reasoning on any kind of public facility
    • Brown's words concern public education, so they do not by themselves decide railways
    • Brown has nothing to say about Plessy, since the cases were decided in different decades
    • Brown applied to private railways, since Plessy concerned a railway

16. Use this

    Card H (summary in our words). Mathews v. Eldridge held that no hearing was needed before disability payments end, after weighing the three factors. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) had required a hearing before welfare payments end. In Mathews the Court said eligibility for disability payments is not based on financial need, so the private interest is likely less than for welfare. Two justices dissented in Mathews. Card C. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), exact words: due process requires weighing “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”, “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” and “the Government's interest”. Goss v. Lopez (1975), exact words: “Longer suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.”

17. 9.

    A student says Mathews shows disability payments are less important than welfare. Bo reads Cards H and C. What is the best reply?

    • The Court said nothing about a difference, since it decided the case on its own facts
    • The dissent said so, since two justices disagreed with the majority about how to weigh
    • The Court said the private interest was likely less than for welfare, but that weighed factors, not worth
    • The Court ranked disability payments below welfare as less worthy of protection under the Constitution

18. Use this

    Card D (made up). The State of Pine ends a family's monthly food assistance on the first of the month after a computer finds a mismatch in its records. The family gets no notice and no chance to answer before the benefit stops. The State says the benefit is small and the check is automatic. Card C. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), exact words: due process requires weighing “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”, “the risk of an erroneous deprivation” and “the Government's interest”. Goss v. Lopez (1975), exact words: “Longer suspensions or expulsions for the remainder of the school term, or permanently, may require more formal procedures.” Card H (summary in our words). Mathews v. Eldridge held that no hearing was needed before disability payments end, after weighing the three factors. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) had required a hearing before welfare payments end. In Mathews the Court said eligibility for disability payments is not based on financial need, so the private interest is likely less than for welfare. Two justices dissented in Mathews.

19. 10.

    Using Cards D, C and H, Ari asks what a court would need to know before deciding whether Pine's food-assistance cutoff violated due process.

    • Whether the State's computer is the newest model, since newer machines make fewer errors
    • How likely the mismatch is an error, how much the family relies on the benefit, and what notice would cost
    • Whether the benefit is small, since a small benefit does not call for any process before it ends
    • Whether the family is a citizen, since the Fourteenth Amendment begins with citizenship