Further claims could be based on the dormant commerce clause, Substantive Due Process, or the Equal Protection Clause.
FORBES: NYC Department of Health Supersizes Government, Approves Sugary Beverage Ban
His argument was simple: DOMA violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against homosexual couples.
FORBES: Justices Scrutinize DOMA's Treatment Of Same-Sex Marriage
They need the equal protection now because their families are hurting just the same as every other family is.
Bush's lawyer argued that the lack of a standard for hand-counting ballots violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The equal protection clause states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the law.
FORBES: Gay Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional By 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals
That second standard is almost impossible to violate and the court has been loathe to invoke the Equal Protection Act in purely economic cases.
FORBES: Does A Peevish Roberts Dissent Say Anything About Obamacare?
What is the Federal interest in enacting this statute and is it a valid Federal interest assuming, before we get to the equal protection analysis?
The suit seeks compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Registration Act of 1993 and cites the equal protection clause in the Constitution.
CNN: Civil rights groups file suit over alleged Florida voter disenfranchisement
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the California ban on gay marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
FORBES: Gay Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional By 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals
It was most recently rejected by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled 2 to 1 on October that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The Court has not used the equal protection clause to create a new category of people who need extra legal defenses in three decades, largely because doing so disrupts the ebb and flow of the ordinary political process.
Texas (2003), Kennedy sided with the liberal justices in ruling that a Texas law banning certain types of sexual activity by gay couples which were completely legal for straight couples violated the equal protection clause and, therefore, was unconstitutional.
FORBES: Gay Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional By 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals
The problem for Scalia and Thomas is that the original intent of those who framed the 14th Amendment appears to make it clear that they very much intended for certain, distinct classes to be advantaged by the Equal Protection Clause they originated.
FORBES: The Supreme Court Is the Supremely Wrong Place To Address Affirmative Action
Splitting from a majority that included swing Justice Anthony Kennedy (and, curiously, Clarence Thomas) Roberts attacked his fellow justices for refusing to apply the Equal Protection Act to homeowners who paid 10 to 30 times as much in taxes as their neighbors.
FORBES: Does A Peevish Roberts Dissent Say Anything About Obamacare?
The key danger, in my view, lies in the possibility that the same court will insist that the Equal Protection Clause requires the adoption of some antidiscrimination laws to protect gays, which I would regard as a historical blunder of the first order.
If you subscribe to the importance of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, it becomes difficult to take a position that the existence of affirmative action was ill conceived from the outset as to deny that certain defined segments of American society were disadvantaged by who they are would be to deny reality.
FORBES: The Supreme Court Is the Supremely Wrong Place To Address Affirmative Action
Not surprisingly, this argument concludes by warning against the slippery slope: if you outlaw sharia because it includes some dirty water around the globe, you will have effectively outlawed all such religious and private adjudicative bodies unless you are going to discriminate against the law of Muslims, which would violate the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.
In the Seattle case, the Court ruled by a five-to-four vote that the integration plan did indeed violate the equal-protection clause of the Constitution, and Roberts assigned himself the opinion.
The lawsuit claims the policy violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures, as well as the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which is often invoked to fight laws seen as racially discriminatory.
The Center for Constitutional Rights claims stop-and-frisk violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures as well as the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is often invoked to fight laws seen as racially discriminatory.
The Center for Constitutional Rights claims the stop-and-frisk policy violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures as well as the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is often invoked to fight laws seen as racially discriminatory.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of several individuals, claims the policy violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures, as well as the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is often invoked to fight laws seen as racially discriminatory.
There are two arguments against Section 3: the federalism argument and the equal-protection argument.
Perhaps the equal-protection question in Hollingsworth is more easily resolved than the one in Windsor.
As a matter of historical doctrine, the old Equal Protection law would look with amazement on these developments.
If Kennedy is averse to reaching the equal-protection question in Windsor, that suggests it is a step he would prefer not to take.
Kennedy's evident reluctance to take up the equal-protection argument in Windsor is almost certainly a clue as to his thinking about Hollingsworth v.
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
The suit seeks a ruling that both provisions violate the constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws as well as injunctions stopping enforcement.
The Associated Press reported that two women who were married in the state earlier this year plan to sue on the grounds that the amendment violates their right to equal protection under the law.
应用推荐