Equal Protection: Crash Course Government and Politics #29

Summary

In this Crash Course Government and Politics episode, Craig explains the significance of the Fourteenth Amendment and distinguishes between civil liberties and civil rights. He delves into the 'equal protection' clause, which underpins civil rights, and discusses the concept of protected classes and the levels of scrutiny courts apply to cases involving them. Craig also explores the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, illustrating the Supreme Court's approach to civil rights and its impact on American society.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The Fourteenth Amendment is considered crucial for civil rights and liberties, particularly due to its 'equal protection' clause.
• 🔄 Civil liberties protect citizens from government interference, while civil rights address how citizens may unfairly treat others, often through laws.
• 📜 The 'equal protection' clause mandates that no state deny any person equal protection under the law, which has been pivotal in civil rights cases.
• 🤔 Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted the 'equal protection' clause to apply only to state actions, not private discrimination.
• 🏡 The 'separate but equal' doctrine, established in Plessey v. Ferguson, allowed segregation as long as the state provided equal accommodations for different races.
• 👥 Protected classes, often minorities, are given special judicial attention due to their potential disadvantage in the political process.
• 🕵️‍♂️ The Supreme Court uses 'strict scrutiny' for laws affecting protected classes, requiring a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means.
• 📉 'Rational basis' review is the lowest level of court scrutiny, where the government only needs to show a rational reason for its actions.
• 📚 Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case that rejected 'separate but equal', arguing that segregated facilities are inherently unequal.
• 📚 The decision in Brown v. Board of Education underscored the federal government's role in combating racial discrimination in public institutions like schools.
• 🌐 Civil rights are dynamic and evolve over time, reflecting societal changes and political activities aimed at protecting minority rights.

Q & A

Why is the Fourteenth Amendment considered the most important part of the Constitution by many people?

The Fourteenth Amendment is considered crucial because it includes the 'equal protection' clause, which is the foundation for civil rights protections, ensuring that no state denies any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What is the difference between civil liberties and civil rights?

Civil liberties are protections against government interference in citizens' lives, while civil rights primarily concern the ways citizens can treat other groups differently, often leading to unfair treatment, and are rooted in the 'equal protection' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

How did the Supreme Court initially interpret the 'equal protection' clause in relation to private discrimination?

Initially, the Supreme Court interpreted the 'equal protection' clause to apply only to state governments and not to private discrimination, as seen in the Civil Rights Cases and the 'separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessey v. Ferguson.

What are 'protected classes' in the context of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence?

Protected classes refer to groups that are often minorities and are at a disadvantage in the democratic political process. The Court pays special attention when a statute deals with 'discrete and insular minorities,' such as those based on religion, nationality, or race.

Why does the Supreme Court apply a higher level of scrutiny when dealing with 'protected classes'?

The Court applies a higher level of scrutiny for protected classes because these minorities are at a significant disadvantage in the political process, making it difficult for them to pass laws favoring them, thus necessitating judicial protection.

What is the 'strict scrutiny' standard and how does it apply to cases involving protected classes?

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review where the government has a heavy burden to prove that a law or action concerning a protected class is allowable. It involves a five-step process to examine the government's actions, making it difficult for the government to pass this test.

What is the 'rational basis' standard and how does it differ from 'strict scrutiny'?

The 'rational basis' standard is the lowest level of court scrutiny where the government only needs to show a rational basis for its actions. This standard gives the government more leeway with its laws compared to the strict scrutiny standard.

What is 'intermediate scrutiny' and how does it compare to 'strict scrutiny' and 'rational basis'?

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard that is harder to meet than the rational basis but does not usually result in the government losing the case like strict scrutiny does. It falls between the two in terms of the level of scrutiny applied by the courts.

How did the Brown v. Board of Education case challenge the 'separate but equal' doctrine?

Brown v. Board of Education challenged the 'separate but equal' doctrine by arguing that separate facilities are inherently unequal because they make minority groups feel inferior. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, marking a significant step in the civil rights movement.

Why is Brown v. Board of Education considered a landmark case in American civil rights history?

Brown v. Board of Education is considered a landmark case because it demonstrated the federal government's ability to intervene in local matters like public education to address racial discrimination, and it laid the groundwork for subsequent civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

How does the concept of civil rights evolve over time, and why is it important to understand this evolution?

The concept of civil rights evolves over time as societal values and political activities change, with the meaning of civil rights adapting to new issues like same-sex marriage. Understanding this evolution is important because it reflects how society treats different groups and the government's role in protecting minority rights.

Outlines

00:00

📝 Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights

Craig introduces the topic of the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing its significance in the Constitution. He aims to clarify the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights, and how the Supreme Court interprets cases involving these concepts. Civil liberties protect citizens from government interference, while civil rights concern the fair treatment of different groups. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is highlighted, especially its impact on civil rights cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and the 'separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson. The paragraph also introduces the concept of protected classes and the scrutiny levels courts use when examining discrimination cases.

05:02

⚖️ Understanding Strict Scrutiny and Protected Classes

Craig discusses the concept of 'protected classes,' which the Supreme Court scrutinizes when a law or executive action targets specific groups, like religious, national, or racial minorities. This scrutiny arises because minorities are typically disadvantaged in the political process. Craig explains the highest level of scrutiny, 'strict scrutiny,' used when the government must justify its actions against these groups. The courts use a five-step process to evaluate such cases, examining whether there is a fundamental liberty at stake, whether the liberty is fundamental, if there's an undue burden, if the law serves a compelling government interest, and whether the action is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

🔍 Beyond Strict Scrutiny: Rational Basis and Intermediate Scrutiny

Craig explores other levels of judicial scrutiny: 'rational basis' and 'intermediate scrutiny.' When the government isn't dealing with a protected class, the rational basis standard is applied, giving the government wide leeway as long as it has a rational reason for its actions. Intermediate scrutiny is a middle ground, harder than the rational basis but not as stringent as strict scrutiny. The paragraph also provides an example of the Brown v. Board of Education case, explaining how the court approached the issue of racial discrimination in public schools, which led to a landmark decision against segregation despite not fully following previous scrutiny standards.

🏛️ Evolution of Civil Rights and Their Legal Basis

Craig reflects on the evolving nature of civil rights, emphasizing that these rights stem from the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, which emerged after the Civil War. Unlike civil liberties, which are defined by the Bill of Rights, civil rights involve political activity and protecting minority rights, and their scope changes over time. He discusses how civil rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, evolve as societal attitudes shift. He underscores that civil rights are fundamentally about how people treat each other, not just about government actions. The paragraph concludes with a note on the historical and political dynamics that shape the understanding and enforcement of civil rights.

Keywords

💡Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment is a significant part of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which includes the Equal Protection Clause. It is highlighted in the video as a cornerstone for civil rights, particularly in ensuring that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. The video emphasizes its importance in the context of civil rights and liberties, as it provides the legal foundation for challenging discriminatory practices, such as those addressed in Brown v. Board of Education.

💡Civil Liberties

Civil liberties refer to the protections that citizens have against government interference in their lives. In the video, civil liberties are contrasted with civil rights, with the former focusing on what the government cannot do to individuals, such as infringing on free speech or the right to a fair trial. The video discusses how civil liberties are fundamental to the protection of individual freedoms from state overreach.

💡Civil Rights

Civil rights are the rights that ensure equal treatment and opportunities for all individuals, particularly in the face of discrimination. The video explains that civil rights often involve laws that prevent citizens from treating other groups differently, usually unfairly. They are rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and are central to the video's discussion on how legal protections evolve to address societal inequalities.

💡Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a section of the Fourteenth Amendment that mandates states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdiction. The video underscores the clause's significance in the fight against discrimination and its role in shaping civil rights jurisprudence, as seen in cases like Brown v. Board of Education.

💡Protected Classes

Protected classes are groups that are specifically recognized by law and are entitled to additional legal protection against discrimination. The video explains that these classes, such as racial, religious, or national minorities, are afforded heightened judicial scrutiny due to their historical vulnerability to prejudice and their potential for political marginalization.

💡Strict Scrutiny

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws or government actions that affect protected classes. The video describes a five-step process that courts use under strict scrutiny, which is designed to ensure that any discrimination is both necessary and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. This concept is crucial for understanding how courts protect civil rights.

💡Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is the lowest level of judicial scrutiny applied by courts to assess the constitutionality of laws that do not directly affect protected classes. The video notes that under this standard, the government only needs to show a rational connection between the law and a legitimate government interest, providing a broad deference to legislative decisions.

💡Intermediate Scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny is a judicial standard that falls between rational basis and strict scrutiny. The video mentions this standard as applying to certain rights, such as gender discrimination cases, where the government must show an important governmental interest and that the means employed are substantially related to that interest.

💡Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education is a landmark Supreme Court case discussed in the video, which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The case is pivotal as it overturned the 'separate but equal' doctrine and is highlighted for its sociological reasoning that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

💡Disparate Impact

Disparate impact refers to the unintentional discriminatory effects of a policy or practice, even if no intent to discriminate is present. While not explicitly mentioned in the video, the concept is relevant to understanding civil rights and how laws can have a disproportionate effect on protected classes, which is a key consideration in applying strict scrutiny.

Highlights

The Fourteenth Amendment is considered the most important part of the Constitution.

Civil liberties protect citizens from government interference, while civil rights address unequal treatment by citizens or institutions.

The 'equal protection' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the foundation of civil rights protections.

The Supreme Court initially interpreted the 'equal protection' clause to apply only to state governments, not private discrimination.

The 'separate but equal' doctrine was established in Plessey v. Ferguson, allowing segregation as long as accommodations were equal.

Protected classes are groups that courts pay special attention to, such as religious, national, or racial minorities.

Minorities are at a disadvantage in the democratic political process, leading courts to intervene in cases involving protected classes.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of judicial review, requiring the government to prove the law or action is allowable.

The five-step process of strict scrutiny includes evaluating protected liberties, fundamental rights, undue burdens, compelling government interests, and least restrictive means.

Rational basis standard is the lowest level of court scrutiny, where the government only needs to show a rational basis for its actions.

Intermediate scrutiny is a standard between strict scrutiny and rational basis, requiring a more substantial justification than rational basis but not as stringent as strict scrutiny.

Brown v. Board of Education is a landmark case that challenged the 'separate but equal' doctrine and led to the desegregation of public schools.

The Court's decision in Brown v. Board was based on sociological reasoning, arguing that separate facilities are inherently unequal.

Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated the federal government's ability to intervene in local public education to address racial discrimination.

Civil rights are dynamic and change over time, reflecting societal attitudes and political activity.

Civil rights are as much about how citizens treat each other as they are about government actions.

Transcripts

Hi I’m Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we’re going to finally

get into why many people, including me, think that the Fourteenth Amendment is the most

important part of the Constitution. At the same time, we will attempt – successfully,

I hope – to unravel the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, and also

try to figure out how the Supreme Court actually looks at civil rights and civil liberties

cases. So that’s a lot. Let’s get this out of the way because we're not gonna have

time later. Let's get started.

[Theme Music]

So we’ve been talking a lot in the past few episodes about civil liberties, the protections

that citizens have against the government interfering in their lives. Civil rights are

different in that they are primarily about the ways that citizens, often through laws,

can treat other groups of citizens differently, which usually means unfairly. Civil Rights

protections grow out of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within

its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This may seem straightforward, and in some of the landmark cases that we’ll get to

like Brown v. Board of Education, it is, but when you think about it, unequal treatment

of specific groups is usually done by private citizens or institutions – like your employer

or your landlord, and most people, believe it or not, are NOT employed by the government,

either federal or state and they don’t live in government housing.

And initially the Supreme Court interpreted the clause to apply only to the state government,

not to private discrimination. In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court ruled that the law,

“could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce

social, as distinguished from political equality,” and they confirmed that as long as the state

provided equal accommodations for people of different races, segregation was fine. This

is the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine that was formulated in the case Plessey v. Ferguson.

The distinction between social and political equality is an important one, and it provides

a principle for looking at discrimination that the courts still use. Unfortunately,

it’s pretty complicated and it means we have to look at something that’s kind of

confusing, levels of scrutiny and protected classes. And we’ll start with protected

classes because they are easier to understand. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

So when state law or executive action mentions a protected class, the Supreme Court will

almost automatically become suspicious. So what are protected classes? Broadly speaking they are what we

might think of as “minorities” and this is an important way to conceptualize them. The Court defined protected

classes in one of the most important footnotes in their jurisprudence. Here’s the relevant passage:

“Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed

at particular religious … or national, …, or racial minorities,… whether prejudice against

discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail

the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities,

and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.”

So here it lays out the categories where the Court is going to pay special attention: when

a statute deals with “discrete and insular minorities,” such as religious, or national

or racial minorities. It’s automatically suspect and the courts are going to look at it closely.

Why? Well this is in the footnote too. It’s because minorities, by definition, are at

a huge disadvantage in the democratic political process – their numbers are too small to

pass laws that might favor them, and it is easy for groups in the majority to pass laws

that will disadvantage groups that are not in the majority. And this gets at the heart

of the distinction between civil liberties, which deal with government actions, and civil

rights, which deal with majority groups making life hard for minority groups.

You may not like this distinction, but it does have the virtue of being based on a principle.

Basically the courts will step in to protect groups that are unable to protect themselves

in the legislative process because it will be too hard for them to pass laws in their favor.

The way politics works in the U.S. will complicate this, as we’ll see, but

as a principle it does make some sense. Thanks, Thought Bubble.

That footnote above talks about situations that call for a “more searching judicial

inquiry.” This is known as the level of scrutiny that the courts will apply, and it’s

not strictly limited to equal protection cases, but this is where I’m going to try to make sense of it.

So the highest level of scrutiny is called strict scrutiny. I'd call it super scrutiny

or mega-monster scrutiny, but they didn't ask me today. And this means that the government

will have a heavy burden to prove that the law or action in question is allowable. When

government action concerns a protected class, strict scrutiny kicks in. There’s a five-step

process that the courts go through in examining what the government has done.

First they look to see if there’s a protected liberty at stake. Sometimes this is easy,

as with religious freedom, but other times it’s hard, as with certain property rights or privacy issues.

Second they look at whether the liberty is fundamental, which again can be complicated

or not, depending on what the government is doing. Freedom from incarceration is a fundamental

liberty, actually, it’s basically what we mean by liberty, so a law that specifically

incarcerated one group based on nationality would get strict scrutiny. Unfortunately this

did happen, during World War II when Japanese Americans were interned, but it’s a bad example of strict

scrutiny since in that case the court, ruling in the case of Korematsu v. US let the government’s action stand.

Third, they look at whether the law or executive action places an undue burden on the person

or group in question. Let's say a state requires literacy tests for voting which can be burdensome

or not, depending on the test and how it is administered.

Fourth, assuming that the first three qualifications are met, the courts look to see if the law

in question furthers a compelling government interest. In the literacy test example, the

government interest might be seen as creating an educated pool of voters, although I’m

not sure this would qualify as compelling.

Fifth, if the court finds that the law meets all the other criteria, it looks to see if

the government action in question follows the least restrictive means of achieving the

government’s interest. In other words, is there a less burdensome way that the government

could accomplish what it says the law accomplishes? If the answer is yes, then the law is struck down.

So you can see, this five-part test is pretty, well, strict, and it’s hard for the government

to pass it. In practice, this means that if the Court applies strict scrutiny, it means

that the governmental action or law in question is probably going to be deemed unconstitutional.

So that’s strict scrutiny -- not mega-monster scrutiny -- but what about those cases where

the government isn’t dealing with a protected class, which is much of the time? Usually

the Court applies what is called the “rational basis” standard for review. This is the

lowest level of court scrutiny, and what it means is that if the government can show that

it has a rational basis for its actions, the courts will say they are ok. As you might

expect, this gives the government a lot of leeway with its laws.

In between strict scrutiny and rational basis review is something called midzi scrutiny

-- NOPE -- intermediate scrutiny. It’s a harder standard to meet than rational basis,

but it doesn’t mean that the government usually loses, like with strict scrutiny.

Why doesn't the government consult me about naming things?

Ok, so now we have a sense of what civil rights are, and why the courts look at civil rights

cases in the way that they do. It seems like a good time for an example to help make sense of all this.

And there’s no better example than the famous decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.

Although it was not the first case to take on the issue of discrimination in education,

Brown v. Board is the most important, because it dealt with public schools. The issue was

that Topeka had separate schools for black students and white students. Linda Brown was

black and her parents wanted her to attend the white school because it was closer to

where they lived and because it was better. The schools were supposed to be equal in quality

under the “separate but equal” doctrine, but they weren’t.

So after all I’ve told you about how the court decides cases where protected classes

are involved – in this case black people who certainly qualify as a discrete and insular

minority – the interesting thing about Brown v. Board of Education is that the Court pretty

much ignored all of it. Their reasoning wasn’t legal or historical, it was sociological,

based on the idea that separate facilities are inherently unequal because they make the

minority group feel inferior to the majority group.

Although the case didn’t immediately bring about the end of segregated schools – many

states engaged in what they called “massive resistance” to prevent school integration,

Brown v. Board of Education is still a landmark Civil Rights case. It showed that the federal

government could intervene in something as local as public education when racial discrimination

was involved, and, more important, it showed that states couldn’t use race as a criterion

for setting up public schools. It was the legal basis of what we know as the American

civil rights movement, and provided the foundation for the federal civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

So I got a little into the history there, sorry about that. I know this is Crash Course

Government and not Crash Course History. But with civil rights it's kind of hard not to.

That’s because, unlike with civil liberties which are pretty much defined by the bill

of rights, the question of civil rights comes out of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection

clause, which itself came about because of the Civil War and from the very beginning

was a contested concept, and one whose meaning has changed over time.

Because civil rights and equal protection almost by definition involve political activity

and protection of minority rights, what constitutes civil rights changes over time. That’s why,

in 2015 people talk about same sex marriage as a defining civil rights issue when 30 years

earlier it was hardly mentioned. What’s really important is that we understand that

civil rights, and their denial, have as much, if not more, to do with us and how we treat each other,

as they have to do with how the government acts. Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next time.

Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support

for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use

technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at

voqal.org. Crash Course was made with the help of these mega-monster scrutineers. Thanks for watching.