On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. ![]() These include questions regarding, among other things, Obergefell’s broader impact on the rights of gay individuals the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to classifications based on sexual orientation what the decision might mean for laws prohibiting plural marriages the Court’s approach to recognizing fundamental rights moving forward and the proper level of judicial scrutiny applicable to governmental action interfering with fundamental rights. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell resolved the question of whether or not state same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, it raised a number of other questions. The Court thus held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples, and that state same-sex marriage bans unconstitutionally interfere with this right. Even so, the Court determined that the reasons why the right to marry is considered fundamental apply equally to same-sex marriages. The Court acknowledged that its precedents have described the fundamental right to marry in terms of opposite-sex relationships. In striking down state same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional in Obergefell, the Court rested its decision upon the fundamental right to marry. Additionally, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process guarantees, state action that infringes upon a fundamental right-such as the right to marry-is subject to a high level of judicial scrutiny. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, state action that classifies groups of individuals may be subject to heightened levels of judicial scrutiny, depending on the type of classification involved or whether the classification interferes with a fundamental right. The Court’s decision relied on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection and due process guarantees. ![]() In doing so, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the country. Hodges requiring states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally formed in other states. ![]() Further Readingįor more on equal protection, see this Harvard Law Review article, this University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, and this Columbia University Law Review article.On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergefell v. It is important to note that courts have combined elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test. The court will determine which scrutiny the individual will be subject to, relying on legal precedent to determine which level of scrutiny to use. The individual will need to prove that the governing body's action resulted in actual harm to them. After proving this, the court will typically scrutinize the governmental action in one of several three ways to determine whether the governmental body's action is permissible: these three methods are referred to as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis scrutiny. ![]() When an individual believes that either the federal government or a state government has violated their guaranteed equal rights, that individual is able to bring a lawsuit against that governmental body for relief.īased on the type of discrimination alleged, the individual will first need to prove that the governing body actually discriminated against the individual. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.Įqual protection forces a state to govern impartially-not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights. It is important to acknowledge that a government is allowed to discriminate against individuals, as long as the discrimination satisfies the equal protection analysis outlined below, and described in full detail in this Santa Clara Law Review article. Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |