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

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Card A. Reed v. Reed (1971, 7 to 0). An Idaho law preferred men over women when a court picked the administrator of an estate. Exact words from Chief Justice Burger's opinion: 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, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” Card B. Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955). An Oklahoma law said an optician could not put old lenses in new frames without a prescription from an eye doctor. Exact words from Justice Douglas's opinion for the Court: “the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.”

2. 1.

   A made-up state law names only fathers as guardians of a child's property, even when a mother applies too. Zee reads Cards A and B. Which test fits?

   • Card B: the law needs a rational way to correct an evil, so the preference stands as a reasonable rule
   • Neither, since guardianship is a state matter and the Constitution does not reach state family law
   • Card A: a preference must have a fair and substantial relation to its object, and convenience is not enough
   • Card A, and the law passes, since saving the court time with fewer hearings is a legitimate goal

3. Use this

   Card D. Goss v. Lopez (1975, 5 to 4). Exact words from the opinion: “The Clause requires at least these rudimentary precautions against unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school.” The opinion says notice and a chance to respond should generally come before a student is removed, but if the student's presence endangers persons or property, “the necessary notice and rudimentary hearing should follow as soon as practicable”.

4. 2.

   A made-up school suspends Tala for 3 days over a food fight and tells Tala the charge only afterward. Ren reads Card D. What is missing?

   • Nothing, since 3 days is short and Goss applies to suspensions of more than 10 days
   • A hearing after the suspension ends, since the opinion lets the hearing follow the removal
   • Notice of the charge and a chance to respond before the removal, unless Tala was a danger
   • A lawyer and a written finding by the school board, since the suspension is a punishment

5. Use this

   Card E. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Exact words from Justice Powell's opinion: due process “generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest”. The Court held that an evidentiary hearing is not required before Social Security disability payments end.

6. 3.

   Mathews allowed disability payments to end before a hearing; two justices dissented. Tala reads Card E. What difference in weighing could explain the dissent?

   • The dissent could weigh the private interest and the risk of error more heavily than the majority did
   • The dissent denied that due process is flexible, since flexible rules mean no rules
   • The dissent relied on Goss, since Goss requires a hearing before any government benefit can end
   • The dissent said the Government has no interest in saving money, since the third factor is not allowed

7. Use this

   Card F. Civil Rights Cases (1883, 8 to 1). The Court considered a law of Congress against discrimination by private inns, theaters and railroads. Exact words from the opinion of the Court: “Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment.” Justice Harlan dissented.

8. 4.

   In 1880 a made-up private inn turns a guest away because of race, and the guest sues under the Fourteenth Amendment. Noah reads Card F. What did the 1883 majority hold?

   • The amendment forbids private discrimination too, since any discrimination is unequal
   • The amendment covers inns but not railroads, since inns are run for travelers
   • Congress later banned it, so the 1883 ruling approved private discrimination
   • The amendment limits states, not private acts, so the claim fails under that ruling

9. Use this

   Card B. Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955). An Oklahoma law said an optician could not put old lenses in new frames without a prescription from an eye doctor. Exact words from Justice Douglas's opinion for the Court: “the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.” Card I (summary in our words). Courts review a law more closely when it treats people differently by race than when it is ordinary economic regulation. Laws that treat men and women differently get a closer look than economic rules but not the closest. Reed v. Reed (Card A) is an early case of that closer look.

10. 5.

    A made-up city bans food trucks downtown to protect restaurants. Bo reads Cards B and I. Which review fits?

    • The lenient review of Card B: it is an economic rule and stands if it is a rational way to a goal
    • The closer review of Reed, since the ban treats some sellers worse than others without a good reason
    • The closest review of Card I, since the ban treats some businesses worse than others downtown
    • No review, since a city ordinance is outside the Fourteenth Amendment, which limits states, not cities

11. Use this

    Card C. Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Exact words: “in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), majority, exact words: laws requiring separation “do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other”. Harlan's dissent: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

12. 6.

    A made-up district offers “separate but equal” schools with the same buildings and budgets. Luz reads Card C. Does that save the plan under Brown?

    • No: Brown said separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, whatever the buildings
    • Yes, since Plessy allowed separate facilities if they were equal, and the buildings here match
    • No, since Brown found that the schools in that case had unequal funding and unequal buildings
    • Yes, since Brown concerned schools that were unequal in their buildings and budgets, which these are not

13. Use this

    Card A. Reed v. Reed (1971, 7 to 0). An Idaho law preferred men over women when a court picked the administrator of an estate. Exact words from Chief Justice Burger's opinion: 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, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.” Card I (summary in our words). Courts review a law more closely when it treats people differently by race than when it is ordinary economic regulation. Laws that treat men and women differently get a closer look than economic rules but not the closest. Reed v. Reed (Card A) is an early case of that closer look.

14. 7.

    A made-up state pays a death benefit to widows but not to widowers. Jun reads Cards A and I. Which statement is best?

    • The state needs just a rational reason, as with economic rules, so a convenience rule would pass
    • The state must show the closest scrutiny, as with a race classification, or the law fails
    • The state is free to decide, since benefits are not a right and a state may give them to some and not others
    • A fair and substantial reason is needed for the difference, so a convenience rule is likely to fail

15. Use this

    Card G. Barron v. Baltimore (1833), exact words: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.” Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, 9 to 0), exact words from Justice Black's opinion: “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.” Gideon was charged by the State of Florida. 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”.

16. 8.

    Barron (1833) and Gideon (1963) both concern the Bill of Rights and a state. Kira reads Card G. What changed between them?

    • Barron applied the Bill of Rights to the states and Gideon refused to apply it to Florida
    • The Court began to read the Fourteenth Amendment's due process words to cover Bill of Rights protections
    • Gideon was a national case, so it could apply the Sixth Amendment directly without the Fourteenth
    • The Bill of Rights was rewritten to list the states, since Card G quotes its own words on them

17. Use this

    Card H (summary in our words). In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873, 5 to 4) the Court read the Fourteenth Amendment's “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” narrowly, so that clause did not protect most rights against the states. Later cases applied rights to the states through the due process words.

18. 9.

    The Slaughter-House Cases (1873, 5 to 4) read “privileges or immunities” narrowly. Ari reads Card H. Why does that matter for incorporation?

    • Rights against states came through the due process words, not the privileges or immunities words
    • The Court used privileges or immunities for incorporation, since it was read broadly in 1873
    • No right could ever be protected against a state, since the clause was read narrowly
    • The 1873 vote shows incorporation was already settled by then, so no later case was needed

19. Use this

    Card J (summary in our words). Of the Bill of Rights, most protections have been applied to the states. The Fifth Amendment's grand jury clause has not. Cases have applied protections one at a time, not all at once. Card G. Barron v. Baltimore (1833), exact words: “These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments.” Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, 9 to 0), exact words from Justice Black's opinion: “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.” Gideon was charged by the State of Florida. 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”.

20. 10.

    “Incorporation applied the whole Bill of Rights to the states,” says Milo. What do Cards J and G show?

    • Most protections, applied one at a time, but not the grand jury clause
    • The whole Bill of Rights, since Gideon applied the Sixth Amendment to a state
    • A few protections, since the Court has not said which rights apply to the states
    • The Sixth Amendment alone, since Gideon concerned a lawyer for a poor defendant