Teng himoya qilish moddasi - Equal Protection Clause

Ushbu maqola qismidir bir qator ustida
Konstitutsiyasi
Qo'shma Shtatlar
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining katta gerbi.svg
Muqaddima va maqolalar
Konstitutsiyaga kiritilgan o'zgartirishlar
Tasdiqlanmagan o'zgartirishlar:
Tarix
To'liq matn
  • United States flags.svg Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari portali
  • Johnny-avtomatik-adolat-tarozi.svg Qonun portali
Konstitutsiyaviy huquq
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari
Adolat o'lchovi 2.svg
Umumiy nuqtai
Printsiplar
Hukumat tuzilishi
Shaxsiy huquqlar
Nazariya

The Teng himoya qilish moddasi matnidan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish. 1868 yilda kuchga kirgan bandda "na biron bir davlat ... o'z vakolati doirasidagi biron bir kishiga qonunlarning teng himoyasini rad etmasligi kerak". Shunga o'xshash holatlarda bo'lgan shaxslarga qonun bilan teng munosabatda bo'lish majburiydir.[1][2][3]

Ushbu bandning asosiy motivatsiyasi tarkibidagi tenglik qoidalarini tasdiqlash edi 1866 yildagi fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun bu barcha fuqarolarning qonun bilan teng himoyalanish kafolatlangan huquqiga ega bo'lishini kafolatladi. Umuman olganda, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish Amerika konstitutsionizmida katta o'zgarishlarni amalga oshirdi, bu shtatlarga nisbatan konstitutsiyaviy cheklovlarni ilgari qo'llanilganidan ancha ko'proq qo'llagan. Fuqarolar urushi.

Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi bandning mazmuni ko'p munozaralarga sabab bo'ldi va taniqli iborani ilhomlantirdi "Qonun bo'yicha teng adolat ". Ushbu band uchun asos bo'lgan Brown va Ta'lim kengashi (1954), Oliy sud demontaj qilishga yordam bergan qaror irqiy ajratish Shuningdek, diskriminatsiya va turli guruhlarga mansub kishilarga nisbatan mutaassiblikni rad qiluvchi boshqa ko'plab qarorlar uchun asos.

Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi bandning o'zi faqat davlat va mahalliy hokimiyat organlariga taalluqli bo'lsa-da, Oliy sud ushbu qarorni qabul qildi Bolling va Sharpga qarshi (1954) Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band ning Beshinchi o'zgartirish orqali federal hukumatga turli xil teng himoya talablarini qo'yadi teskari qo'shilish.

Matn

Teng himoya qilish moddasi o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning 1-bo'limining oxirida joylashgan:

Qo'shma Shtatlarda tug'ilgan yoki fuqaroligi bo'lgan va uning yurisdiksiyasiga bo'ysunadigan barcha shaxslar Qo'shma Shtatlar va ular yashaydigan shtat fuqarolari. Hech bir davlat Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari fuqarolarining imtiyozlari yoki immunitetlarini bekor qiladigan biron bir qonunni amalga oshirmaydi yoki amalga oshirmaydi; shuningdek, biron bir davlat hech kimni qonuniy tartibsiz hayotdan, erkinlikdan yoki mulkdan mahrum qilmaydi; o'z vakolati doirasidagi biron bir shaxsga qonunlarning teng himoyasini inkor etmaslik. [urg'u qo'shildi]

Fon

Kongressmen Jon Bingem ning Ogayo shtati Teng himoya qilish moddasining asosiy asoschisi edi.

Garchi qonun bo'yicha tenglik Amerikaning mustaqillik deklaratsiyasidan kelib chiqqan huquqiy odati bo'lsa-da,[4] ko'plab guruhlar uchun rasmiy tenglik qiyin bo'lib qoldi. Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi bandni o'z ichiga olgan Qayta qurish tuzatishlari qabul qilinishidan oldin, Amerika qonunchiligi qora tanli amerikaliklarga konstitutsiyaviy huquqlarni kengaytirmagan.[5] Qora tanlilar oq tanli amerikaliklardan past deb hisoblanar edi va ular ichida qullik qulligi ostida edi qullik davlatlari gacha Emansipatsiya to'g'risidagi e'lon va ratifikatsiya qilish O'n uchinchi tuzatish.

Hatto qora amerikaliklar ham edi qulga aylanmagan ko'plab hal qiluvchi huquqiy himoyalarga ega emas edi.[5] 1857 yilda Dred Skott va Sandford qaror, Oliy sud rad etdi bekor qilish va qat'iyatli qora tanli erkaklar, xoh ozod bo'lsin, xoh qullikda bo'lsin, o'sha paytda AQSh Konstitutsiyasiga muvofiq qonuniy huquqlarga ega emas edilar.[6] Ayni paytda, tarixchilarning ko'pligi, ushbu sud qarori Qo'shma Shtatlarni Fuqarolar urushi yo'lida olib bordi, bu esa Qayta qurish tuzatishlarini ratifikatsiya qilishga olib keldi, deb hisoblaydi.[7]  

Fuqarolar urushi oldidan va uning davrida janubiy davlatlar ittifoq tarafdorlari, qullikka qarshi advokatlar va umuman shimoliy aholining nutqini taqiqlashdi, chunki Huquqlar to'g'risidagi qonun shtatlarga taalluqli emas edi bunday paytlarda. Fuqarolar urushi davrida ko'plab janubiy shtatlar ko'plab oq tanlilarning davlat fuqaroligidan mahrum qilishdi va ularni o'z davlatlaridan haydab chiqarib, mulklarini samarali ravishda tortib olishdi. Amerika fuqarolar urushi, O'n uchinchi tuzatish Kongress tomonidan taklif qilingan va tasdiqlangan davlatlar tomonidan 1865 yilda, bekor qilish qullik. Keyinchalik, ko'plab sobiqKonfederatsiya keyinchalik qabul qilingan davlatlar Qora kodlar urushdan so'ng, ushbu qonunlar bilan qora tanlilarning egalik qilish huquqlari keskin cheklangan mulk, shu jumladan ko'chmas mulk (kabi ko `chmas mulk ) va ko'plab shakllari shaxsiy mulk va qonuniy ravishda bajariladigan shaklni shakllantirish shartnomalar. Bunday kodlar yanada qattiqroq o'rnatildi jinoiy oqibatlar oq tanlilarga qaraganda qora tanlilar uchun.[8]

Qora kodlar tomonidan belgilab qo'yilgan tengsizlik tufayli, Respublikachilar tomonidan boshqariladigan Kongress 1866 yildagi fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun. Qonunda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarida tug'ilganlarning barchasi fuqarolar bo'lishi nazarda tutilgan edi (Oliy sudning 1857 yildagi qaroriga zid ravishda Dred Skott va Sandford ), va "har bir fuqaroning poyga va rang ... inson va mol-mulk xavfsizligi uchun barcha qonunlar va protseduralardan to'la va teng ravishda foydalidir, chunki oq tanli fuqarolar bundan foydalanadilar. "[9]

Prezident Endryu Jonson 1866 yilgi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunga Kongressning bunday qonun loyihasini qabul qilish konstitutsiyaviy vakolatiga ega emasligi (boshqa narsalar qatorida) xavotiri ostida veto qo'ydi. Bunday shubhalar Kongressni o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning teng himoyalash bandi nima bo'lishini muhokama qilish va muhokama qilishni boshlashiga sabab bo'lgan omillardan biri edi.[10][11] Bundan tashqari, Kongress himoya qilishni xohladi oq ittifoqchilar sobiq Konfederatsiyada shaxsiy va huquqiy hujumga uchraganlar.[12] Sa'y-harakatlari Radikal respublikachilar Kongressning ikkala palatasi, shu jumladan Jon Bingem, Charlz Sumner va Taddey Stivens. Bu "Teng himoya qilish" bandining asosiy muallifi va muallifi bo'lgan Jon Bingemning eng ta'sirchan kishisi edi.

The Janubiy davlatlar Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunga qarshi edilar, ammo 1865 yilda Kongress Konstitutsiyaning I moddasi 5-bo'limining 1-bandiga binoan "o'z a'zolarining ... malakalari bo'yicha sudyasi bo'lish" vakolatini amalga oshirib, janubiy aholini chetlashtirdi. Kongressdan, ularning davlatlari Ittifoqqa qarshi bosh ko'targanliklari sababli, Kongressga a'zolarni saylay olmaydilar. Aynan shu fakt - o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning "dumg'aza "Kongress - bu o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni Kongress tomonidan qabul qilinishiga imkon bergan va keyinchalik shtatlarga taklif qilingan. Sobiq Konfederat davlatlari tomonidan tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilish ularni yana Ittifoqga qabul qilish sharti sifatida qo'yilgan.[13]

Tasdiqlash

Konstitutsiyaning originalist talqinlariga qaytish bilan, ko'pchilik qayta qurish tuzatishlari ratifikatsiya qilingan paytda uni tuzuvchilar tomonidan nima maqsad qilinganligini bilishadi. 13-tuzatish qullikni bekor qildi, ammo uning boshqa huquqlarni qay darajada himoya qilishi noma'lum edi.[14] 13-tuzatishdan so'ng, janub qora tanli amerikaliklarni o'zlarini past darajasida saqlashga qaratilgan cheklovchi qonunlar bo'lgan qora kodlarni joriy qila boshladi. Qora kodlarning ko'payishiga javoban asabiy respublikachilar tomonidan 14-tuzatma ratifikatsiya qilindi.[14] Ushbu ratifikatsiya ko'p jihatdan tartibsiz edi. Birinchidan, 14-tuzatishni rad etgan bir nechta davlatlar bo'lgan, ammo qayta qurish tufayli yangi hukumatlar tuzilganida, ushbu yangi hukumatlar ushbu tuzatishlarni qabul qilishdi.[15] Shuningdek, Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi shtatlarida ham tuzatishlar qabul qilindi va keyinchalik ushbu qarorni bekor qiladigan qarorlar qabul qilindi. Ikki davlatning qabul qilishini bekor qilish noqonuniy deb topildi va Ogayo va Nyu-Jersi ham tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilganlar qatoriga kiritildi.[15]

Ko'pgina tarixchilar 14-tuzatish dastlab fuqarolarga keng siyosiy va ijtimoiy huquqlarni berishni mo'ljallamaganligini, aksincha 1866 yilgi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonunning konstitutsiyaviyligini mustahkamlashga qaratilganligini ta'kidladilar.[16] Bu o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilishning asosiy sababi bo'lganligi to'g'risida keng kelishilgan bo'lsa-da, ko'plab tarixchilar yanada kengroq qarashni qabul qilishadi. O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish har doim Qo'shma Shtatlardagi hamma uchun teng huquqliligini ta'minlashga qaratilgan degan talqin.[17] Ushbu dalil tomonidan ishlatilgan Charlz Sumner u qora tanli amerikaliklarga beriladigan himoyani kengaytirish uchun o'zining dalillari uchun 14-tuzatishni asos qilib olganida.[18]

Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi band huquqiy nazariyada eng ko'p keltirilgan g'oyalardan biri bo'lsa-da, 14-tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qilish paytida unga unchalik e'tibor berilmadi.[19] Uning o'rniga o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning asosiy qoidasi uni tasdiqlash paytida qabul qilingan edi Imtiyozlar va immunitetlar moddasi.[16] Ushbu band barcha fuqarolarning imtiyozlari va immunitetlarini himoya qilishga qaratilgan bo'lib, ular tarkibiga endi qora tanli erkaklar ham kiritilgan.[20] Ushbu bandning doirasi quyidagilardan so'ng sezilarli darajada toraygan Qassobxona holatlari unda fuqaroning imtiyozlari va immunitetlari faqat Federal darajada ta'minlanishi va ushbu standartni shtatlarga tatbiq etish hukumat tomonidan haddan tashqari ko'tarilganligi aniqlandi.[17] Hatto ushbu to'xtatib qo'yilgan qarorda ham, sud 14-tuzatma yomonlik va adolatsizlikka qarshi kurashish kerakligini bilgan holda, ushbu tuzatish kiritilgan kontekstni tan oldi.[21] Imtiyozlar va immunitetlar bandining bekor qilinishi bilan qora tanli amerikaliklarning huquqlarini himoya qilishga qaratilgan huquqiy dalillar yanada murakkablashdi va shu bilan teng himoya moddasi kuchaytirishi mumkin bo'lgan dalillarga e'tibor qaratishni boshladi.[16]  

Kongressdagi munozaralar paytida ushbu bandning bir nechta versiyalari ko'rib chiqildi. Mana bu birinchi versiya: "Kongress bir nechta shtatdagi barcha odamlarga hayot, erkinlik va mulk huquqlari bo'yicha teng himoyani ta'minlash uchun zarur va to'g'ri bo'lgan barcha qonunlarni qabul qilish huquqiga ega."[22] Bingham ushbu versiya haqida shunday degan edi: "Kongress vakolatiga, davlatlarning qonunlari bilan himoya barcha odamlarning hayoti va erkinligi va mulkiga nisbatan teng bo'lishini ta'minlashga imkon beradi".[22] Birinchi versiyaning asosiy raqibi Kongressmen edi Robert S. Xeyl Nyu-York shtati, Bingemning "hozirgi g'ururli mavqeini egallab turgan paytda Nyu-York shtatida hech qanday talqin qilinishi mumkin emas" degan jamoat va'dalariga qaramay.[23]

Biroq, Xeyl so'nggi versiyaga ovoz berishni yakunladi. Qachon senator Jeykob Xovard ushbu so'nggi versiyani taqdim etdi, dedi:[24]

Qora tanli odamni osib qo'ymaslik uchun jinoyat uchun osib qo'yishni taqiqlaydi. Bu qora tanli odamni oq tan ustidan tashlagan qalqonga ega bo'lgan fuqaro sifatida o'zining asosiy huquqlarida himoya qiladi. Bir kasta a'zosiga boshqa adolat o'ldirilishi kerak bo'lganida, boshqa kastaning a'zosiga boshqa o'lchov chorasi ko'rilishi kerak bo'lgan vaqt o'tishi kerak emas edi, ikkala kasta ham AQSh fuqarolari bo'lgan, ikkalasi ham bir xil qonunlarga bo'ysunishi, bir xil hukumatning yukini ko'tarishi va tanada qilingan ishlar uchun ikkalasi ham adolat va Xudo oldida bir xil javobgar?

The Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlarining 39-kongressi 1866 yil 13-iyunda o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishni taklif qildi. Ushbu bandning dastlabki va oxirgi versiyalari orasidagi farq shundaki, oxirgi versiya nafaqat "teng himoya", balki "qonunlarning teng himoyasi" haqida gapirdi. Jon Bingem 1867 yil yanvar oyida shunday degan edi: "hech bir davlat hech kimga qonunlarning teng himoyasini, shu jumladan Konstitutsiyaning har bir moddasi va bo'limlarini shaxsiy himoya qilish uchun barcha cheklovlarni inkor etishi mumkin emas. ..."[25] 1868 yil 9-iyulga kelib, shtatlarning to'rtdan uch qismi (37 dan 28tasi) ushbu tuzatishni ratifikatsiya qildilar va o'sha paytda Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun qonunga aylandi.[26]

Ratifikatsiyadan keyingi dastlabki tarix

Bingham 1871 yil 31 martda qilgan nutqida ushbu band biron bir davlatga "AQSh Konstitutsiyasining teng himoya qilinishini ... [yoki] u barcha insonlarga kafolatlaydigan biron bir huquqni" rad eta olmasligini anglatishini aytdi, hech kimga "Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari yoki shu davlatning qonunlari va shartnomalari bilan ta'minlangan har qanday huquqni" rad etmaslik.[27] O'sha paytda tenglikning ma'nosi har bir holatdan boshqasiga o'zgarib turardi.[28]

E. V. Kembning ushbu rasmida buzilgan 14-tuzatish bilan uxlab yotgan Kongress ko'rsatilgan. Kongress qora tanli amerikaliklar oldidagi konstitutsiyaviy majburiyatlarini e'tiborsiz qoldirganligi sababli.

Dastlabki o'n uchta shtatdan to'rttasi hech qachon taqiqlovchi qonunlarni qabul qilmagan millatlararo nikoh va boshqa davlatlar qayta qurish davrida bu masalada ikkiga bo'lingan.[29] 1872 yilda Alabama Oliy sudi davlatning aralash irqiy nikohni taqiqlashi 1866 yilgi Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun va teng himoya moddasining "asosiy printsipi" ni buzgan deb qaror qildi.[30] AQSh Oliy sudi Alabama ishidan keyin deyarli yuz yil o'tishi kerak edi (Berns v shtatga qarshi) bo'lgan holatda Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi. Yilda Kuyishlar, Alabama Oliy sudi shunday dedi:[31]

Nikoh - bu fuqarolik shartnomasi bo'lib, ushbu xususiyat bilan faqat shahar qonunchiligi ko'rib chiqiladi. Oq tanli fuqarolar foydalanadigan shartnoma tuzish huquqi, oq tanli fuqaro qilishi mumkin bo'lgan har qanday shartnomani tuzish huquqini anglatadi. Qonun irq va rangning u bilan ta'minlangan huquqlarga nisbatan farqlarini yo'q qilishga qaratilgan edi.

Davlat maktabiga kelsak, bu davrda bironta ham shtat yo'q Qayta qurish aslida qora tanlilar uchun alohida maktablar kerak edi.[32] Biroq, ba'zi shtatlar (masalan, Nyu-York) hisoblangan maktablarni tashkil etish uchun mahalliy tumanlarga o'z ixtiyorlarini berishdi alohida, lekin teng.[33] Aksincha, Ayova va Massachusets shtatlari 1850-yillardan beri ajratilgan maktablarni qat'iyan taqiqlashdi.[34]

Shunga o'xshab, ba'zi davlatlar ayollarning huquqiy maqomiga boshqalarga qaraganda ancha qulay bo'lgan; Masalan, Nyu-York 1860 yildan buyon ayollarga to'liq mulk, ota-ona va beva ayollarning huquqlarini berib keladi, ammo ovoz berish huquqini bermaydi.[35] Hech qanday davlat yoki hududga ruxsat berilmaydi ayollarning saylov huquqi 1868 yilda Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi band kuchga kirganda.[36] Aksincha, o'sha paytda afroamerikalik erkaklar beshta shtatda to'liq ovoz berish huquqiga ega edilar.[37]

Oltin oltin talqini va Baxtli qaror

Qo'shma Shtatlarda 1877 yil rekonstruksiya nihoyasiga etdi va boshlandi Oltin oltin. Oliy sud tomonidan qabul qilingan birinchi haqiqiy teng huquqli qaror Strauder va G'arbiy Virjiniyaga qarshi (1880). Tomonidan o'ldirilganlikda ayblangan qora tanli odam oq tanli hakamlar hay'ati da'vo qildi a G'arbiy Virjiniya nizom qora tanlilarni hakamlar hay'ati tarkibiga kirishdan tashqari. Qora tanlilarni hakamlar hay'ati tarkibidan chetlatish, deya xulosa qildi sud, qora tanli sudlanuvchilarga teng himoyani rad etish edi, chunki hakamlar hay'ati "davlat sudlanuvchining irqidan har bir kishini aniq chiqarib tashlagan hay'atdan olingan". Shu bilan birga, Sud aniq ruxsat berdi seksizm va boshqa diskriminatsiya turlari, "davlatlar tanlovni erkaklar, erkin egalar, fuqarolar, ma'lum yoshga to'lgan shaxslar yoki ma'lumotga ega bo'lgan shaxslar bilan cheklashlari mumkin. Biz o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish hech qachon buni taqiqlashni nazarda tutmagan deb o'ylaymiz. ... Uning maqsadi irq yoki rangga qarab kamsitishga qarshi edi. "[38]

Qaror bergan sud Baxtli

Urushdan keyingi keyingi muhim voqea Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar (1883), unda konstitutsiyaga muvofiqligi 1875 yildagi fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun masala bo'yicha edi. Qonunda barcha odamlar "... mehmonxonalardan to'liq va teng ravishda bahramand bo'lishlari" sharti berilgan. jamoat transporti vositalari "quruqlikda yoki suvda, teatrlarda va boshqa ko'ngil ochish joylarida." O'zining fikriga ko'ra, sud shu vaqtdan buyon "deb nomlangan narsani tushuntirib berdi"davlat harakatlari doktrinasi ", bunga binoan Teng himoya qilish moddasining kafolatlari faqat davlat tomonidan qilingan yoki boshqa yo'l bilan" qandaydir tarzda sanksiya qilingan "harakatlarga nisbatan qo'llaniladi. Qora tanlilarning spektakllarga tashrif buyurishlari yoki mehmonxonalarda bo'lishlarini taqiqlash" shunchaki shaxsiy xato "edi. adolat Jon Marshall Xarlan yolg'iz o'zgacha fikr bildirdi, "Men Konstitutsiyaga yaqinda kiritilgan tuzatishlarning mohiyati va ruhi nozik va mohirona og'zaki tanqid tufayli qurbon qilingan" degan xulosaga qarshi tura olmayman. Harlan (1) "quruqlikdagi va suvdagi jamoat transportlari" umumiy foydalanish yo'llaridan foydalanganligi va (2) mehmonxonachilar "kvazi jamoat ishi" va (3) "ommaviy o'yin-kulgi joylari" bilan shug'ullanganligi sababli bahslashdi. shtatlarning qonunlari bo'yicha litsenziyalangan, qora tanlilar ushbu xizmatlardan foydalanishni istisno qiladilar edi davlat tomonidan sanksiya qilingan harakat.

Bir necha yil o'tgach, Adliya Stenli Metyus sudning fikrini yozdi Hik Vo va Xopkins (1886).[39] Unda 14-tuzatish bo'limidagi "shaxs" so'zi AQSh Oliy sudi tomonidan eng keng ma'noda berilgan:[40]

Ushbu qoidalar irqiy, rang va millat farqlarini hisobga olmasdan, hududiy yurisdiktsiyadagi barcha shaxslarga nisbatan qo'llanilishida universaldir va qonunlarning bir xil himoyasi teng qonunlarni himoya qilish garovidir.

Shunday qilib, ushbu band afroamerikaliklarga nisbatan kamsitish bilan cheklanib qolmasdan, balki boshqa irq, rang va millatlarga (bu holda) tegishli bo'ladi. qonuniy musofirlar Xitoy fuqarolari bo'lgan Qo'shma Shtatlarda.

Tenglikni himoya qilish bandining eng munozarali zarhal yoshdagi talqinida, Plessi va Fergyuson (1896), Oliy sud qarorini tasdiqladi a Luiziana Jim Crow qonuni bu talab qilingan ajratish qora va oq tanlilar temir yo'llar va ikkita poyga a'zolari uchun alohida temir yo'l vagonlari majburiy ravishda o'rnatildi.[41] Sud, Adolat orqali gaplashib Genri B. Braun, Tenglikni himoya qilish moddasi tenglikni himoya qilish uchun mo'ljallangan deb qaror qildi inson huquqlari, tenglik emas ijtimoiy kelishuvlar. Shuning uchun qonundan talab qilinadigan barcha narsa oqilona bo'lishi kerak edi va Luiziana shtatidagi temir yo'l qonuni bu talabni "xalqning odatiy foydalanishi, urf-odatlari va an'analariga" asoslangan holda to'liq qondirdi. Adolat Xarlan yana norozi bo'ldi. "Hamma biladi", deb yozgan u,

ushbu nizomning kelib chiqishi qora tanlilar tomonidan ishg'ol qilingan temir yo'l vagonlaridan oq tanli odamlarni chetlatish uchun emas, balki oq tanli odamlar egallagan yoki ularga tayinlangan murabbiylardan rangli odamlarni chiqarib tashlashdan iborat edi. Konstitutsiya, qonun nazarida, bu mamlakatda fuqarolarning ustun, hukmron, hukmron tabaqasi yo'q. Bu yerda yo'q kast Bu yerga. Bizning Konstitutsiyamiz ranglarni ko'r-ko'rona va fuqarolar o'rtasidagi sinflarni bilmaydi va ularga toqat qilmaydi.

Bunday "o'zboshimchalik bilan ajratish" irq bo'yicha, deya xulosa qildi Xarlan, "fuqarolik erkinligi va fuqarolik huquqiga mutlaqo zid bo'lgan qullik nishoni" edi. qonun oldida tenglik Konstitutsiya bilan belgilangan. "[42] Xarlanning falsafasi konstitutsiyaviy rang-baranglik oxir-oqibat yanada kengroq qabul qilinadi, ayniqsa keyin Ikkinchi jahon urushi.

Shuningdek, Oltin davrda Oliy sud qaroriga kiritilgan yozuvlar temir yo'l kompaniyasining sobiq prezidenti Jon C. Bankroft tomonidan yozilgan. Bancroft, vazifasini bajaruvchi sud muxbiri, sarlavhalarda korporatsiyalar "shaxslar" ekanligi ko'rsatilgan, sudning haqiqiy qarori esa korporatsiyalarga nisbatan Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi aniq bayonotlardan qochgan.[43] Biroq, ning huquqiy tushunchasi korporativ shaxsiyat o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishdan oldin.[44] 19-asr oxiri va 20-asrning boshlarida, ushbu modda korporatsiyalarga tegishli ko'plab qonunlarni bekor qilish uchun ishlatilgan. Beri Yangi bitim ammo, bunday yaroqsiz holatlar kamdan-kam uchraydi.[45]

Orasida Baxtli va jigarrang

The AQSh Oliy sudi binosi so'zlari bilan yozilgan 1935 yilda ochilganQonun bo'yicha teng adolat "Teng himoya qilish bandidan ilhomlangan.[46]

Yilda Missuri shtati Geynes va Kanadaga qarshi (1938), Lloyd Geyns da qora tanli talaba bo'lgan Missuri shtatidagi Linkoln universiteti, lardan biri tarixan qora tanli kollejlar yilda Missuri. U yurish fakultetiga o'qishga qabul qilish uchun ariza topshirdi Missuri universiteti, chunki Linkolnda yuridik fakulteti yo'q edi, lekin faqat uning irqi tufayli qabul qilinmadi. Oliy sud, alohida-lekin teng printsipini qo'llagan holda Baxtli, qora tanlilarga emas, balki oq tanlilarga huquqiy ta'lim beradigan davlat Teng himoya qoidalarini buzgan deb hisoblaydi.

Yilda Shelli va Kraemer (1948), Sud irqiy kamsitishni noqonuniy deb topishga tayyorligini oshirdi. The Shelli Bu ish "negr yoki mo'g'ul irqiga mansub odamlarga" ma'lum bir er uchastkasida yashashni taqiqlovchi shaxsiy shartnoma bilan bog'liq edi. Ruhga qarshi chiqishni o'ylayapsizmi, aniq xat bo'lsa ham Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi ishlar, Sud, kamsituvchi xususiy shartnoma Teng himoya qilish qoidalarini buzmasligi mumkinligiga qaramay, sudlarning ijro etish bunday shartnoma mumkin; Axir, Oliy sud fikricha sudlar davlatning bir qismi edi.

Hamrohi holatlar Sweatt va rassom va McLaurin va Oklaxoma shtati Regents, ikkalasi ham 1950 yilda qaror qildilar, maktabga integratsiyalashgan bir qator ishlarga yo'l ochdilar. Yilda McLaurin, Oklaxoma universiteti afroamerikalik McLaurinni tan oldi, lekin u erda faoliyatini cheklab qo'ydi: u sinfdoshlar va kutubxonada qolgan o'quvchilardan alohida o'tirishi kerak edi va bufetda faqat belgilangan stolda ovqat yeyishi mumkin edi. Bir ovozdan sud Bosh sudya Fred M. Vinson, Oklaxoma McLaurinni qonunlarning teng himoyasidan mahrum qilganligini aytdi:

Talabalarning intellektual muomalasini taqiqlovchi davlat tomonidan belgilanadigan cheklovlar va shaxslarning davlat bunday to'siq bo'lmagan joyda muomaladan bosh tortishi o'rtasida juda katta farq - Konstitutsiyaviy farq mavjud.

Hozirgi vaziyat, deydi Vinson, avvalgi holat. Yilda Ter, Sud Texas shtati tizimining konstitutsiyaga muvofiqligini ko'rib chiqdi yuridik fakultetlari, ular qora va oqlarni alohida muassasalarda o'qitgan. Sud (yana bosh sudya Vinson orqali va yana biron marotaba norozi bo'lmagan holda) maktab tizimini bekor qildi, chunki u o'quvchilarni ajratgani uchun emas, aksincha alohida binolar emas edi. teng. Ularga o'z o'quvchilariga taqdim etiladigan "ta'lim olish imkoniyatlarida katta tenglik" etishmadi.

Bu holatlarning barchasi, shuningdek kelgusi jigarrang ishi sud tomonidan ko'rib chiqilgan Rangli odamlarni rivojlantirish bo'yicha milliy assotsiatsiya. Bo'lgandi Charlz Xemilton Xyuston, a Garvard yuridik fakulteti bitiruvchisi va huquqshunos professor Xovard universiteti, 1930-yillarda birinchi bo'lib federal sudlarda irqiy kamsitishlarga qarshi kurashishni boshlagan. Thurgood Marshall, Xyuston va kelajakning sobiq talabasi Bosh advokat va Oliy sud sudyasi, unga qo'shildi. Ikkala odam ham juda mohir edi apellyatsiya himoyachilar, ammo ularning donoliklarining bir qismi ehtiyotkorlik bilan tanlashda edi qaysi sud ishlarini yuritish, ularning sabablari uchun eng yaxshi huquqiy dalillarni tanlash.[47]

jigarrang va uning oqibatlari

Shuningdek qarang: Brown va Ta'lim kengashi

1954 yilda teng himoya bandining kontekstualizatsiyasi abadiy o'zgaradi. Oliy sudning o'zi Braun v kengashi qarorining og'irligini tan oldi, ikkiga bo'lingan qaror Oliy sudning roliga va hatto mamlakatga tahdid solishini tan oldi.[48] Qachon Graf Uorren 1953 yilda bosh sudya bo'ldi, jigarrang sud oldiga kelgan edi. Vinson hali ham bosh sudya bo'lganida, to'qqiz adolatning konferentsiyasida ushbu ish bo'yicha dastlabki ovoz berishlar bo'lgan. O'sha paytda sud ikkiga bo'lingan edi, aksariyat sudyalar ovoz berishicha, maktabni ajratish Teng himoya qilish qoidalarini buzmaydi. Ammo Uorren ishontirish va xushmuomalalik bilan jahl qilish orqali u juda muvaffaqiyatli bo'lgan Respublika sudga kelishdan oldin siyosatchi - sakkizta sudyaning hammasini maktabdagi segregatsiyani konstitutsiyaga zid deb topgan fikrlariga qo'shilishga ishontira oldi.[49] Shu nuqtai nazardan, Uorren shunday deb yozgan edi:

Faqatgina ularning irqiga qarab [sinf va o'rta maktablarda o'qiydigan bolalarni] o'xshash yosh va malakaga ega bo'lganlardan ajratish, ularning jamiyatdagi mavqeiga nisbatan pastlik hissi paydo bo'lib, ularning qalbi va ongiga hech qachon qaytarilmasligi mumkin. .. Biz xulosa qilamizki, xalq ta'limi sohasida "alohida, lekin teng" ta'limotiga o'rin yo'q. Alohida ta'lim muassasalari tabiatan tengsiz.

Uorren kabi boshqa odil sudlovchilarni ruhini tushirdi Robert H. Jekson, har qanday kelishilgan fikrni nashr etishdan; Keyinchalik (1988 yilda) paydo bo'lgan Jeksonning loyihasida quyidagi so'zlar bor edi: "Konstitutsiyalarga ijtimoiy urf-odatlardan ko'ra osonroq o'zgartirishlar kiritiladi va hatto Shimoliy ham o'z irqiy amaliyotlarini o'z kasblariga to'liq moslashtirmaydi".[50][51] Sud qarorni qanday amalga oshirish kerakligi to'g'risida ishni qayta munozaraga tayinladi. Yilda Jigarrang II, 1954 yilda qaror qilingan, avvalgi fikrda aniqlangan muammolar mahalliy bo'lganligi sababli, echimlar ham shunday bo'lishi kerak degan xulosaga kelishdi. Shunday qilib, sud hokimiyatni mahalliy hokimiyatga o'tkazdi maktab kengashlari va dastlabki sudlar dastlab ishlarni ko'rib chiqqan. (jigarrang aslida to'rtta shtatdan to'rt xil ishning birlashishi edi.) Birinchi instansiya sudlari va mahallalarda "barcha qasddan qilingan tezlikda" degregatsiya qilish kerakligi aytilgan.

Qaror bergan sud jigarrang

Qisman o'sha jumboqli ibora tufayli, lekin asosan o'zini e'lon qilganligi uchun "katta qarshilik "Janubda degregatsiya qaroriga qadar, integratsiya 1960-yillarning o'rtalariga qadar hech qanday ahamiyatli tarzda boshlamadi va keyin faqat kichik darajada. Aslida, 1960-yillarda integratsiyaning ko'p qismi bunga javoban sodir bo'ldi jigarrang lekin Fuqarolik huquqlari to'g'risidagi 1964 y. Oliy sud 1950-yillarning oxiri va 60-yillarning boshlarida bir necha bor aralashgan, ammo uning navbatdagi yirik degregatsiya qarori faqatgina Nyu-Kent okrugidagi Green v. Maktab kengashi (1968), unda Adolat Uilyam J. Brennan, bir ovozdan sudga yozish, "tanlov erkinligi" maktab rejasini etarli emas deb rad etdi. Bu muhim qaror edi; tanlov erkinligi rejalari juda keng tarqalgan javob edi jigarrang. Ushbu rejalarga ko'ra, ota-onalar o'z farzandlarini ilgari oq yoki ilgari qora maktabga berishni tanlashlari mumkin edi. Oq tanlilar deyarli hech qachon qora tanli maktablarda o'qishni tanlamadilar, ammo qora tanlilar kamdan-kam hollarda oq tanli maktablarda qatnashdilar.

Bunga javoban Yashil, ko'plab janubiy tumanlar tanlov erkinligini o'rnini geografik asoslangan maktab rejalari bilan almashtirdilar; chunki yashash joylarini ajratish keng tarqaldi, ozgina integratsiya amalga oshirildi. 1971 yilda sud Swann va Charlotte-Meklenburg ta'lim kengashi tasdiqlangan avtobus ajratish uchun vosita sifatida; uch yildan so'ng, bo'lsa ham Milliken va Bredli (1974), sud talabalarining avtobusga chiqishini talab qilgan pastki sud qarorini bekor qildi o'rtasida tumanlar, o'rniga ichida tuman. Milliken asosan Oliy sudning maktabni ajratishdagi asosiy ishtirokiga yakun yasadi; ammo, 1990-yillarga qadar ko'plab federal sud sudlari maktabni degregatsiya qilish ishlarida ishtirok etishdi, ularning aksariyati 1950 va 1960 yillarda boshlangan.[52]

Avtobusni cheklash Milliken va Bredli Qo'shma Shtatlarda tenglashtirilgan ta'lim imkoniyati nima uchun tugamaganligini tushuntirish uchun keltirilgan bir necha sabablardan biridir. Turli xil liberal olimlarning fikriga ko'ra, saylov Richard Nikson 1968 yilda ijro etuvchi hokimiyat sudning konstitutsiyaviy majburiyatlari ortida qolmaganligini anglatadi.[53] Shuningdek, sudning o'zi qaror qildi San-Antonio mustaqil maktab okrugi va Rodrigez (1973), Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi shart, davlatning barcha talabalarga shtatdagi teng miqdordagi ta'limni moliyalashtirishga imkon berishini talab qiladi.[54] Bundan tashqari, sud qarori Pirs va opa-singillar jamiyati (1925), "xususiy maktablarning tanlovi ba'zilarga mavjud bo'lib, boshqalarga berilmagan iqtisodiy manbalardagi tengsizlikka" qaramay, oilalarga davlat maktablaridan voz kechishga ruxsat berdi. Marta Minov qo'ydi.[55]

Amerikalik davlat maktablari tizimlari, ayniqsa yirik metropolitenlarda, hali ham katta darajada amalda ajratilgan. Buning sababi jigarrang, yoki Kongress harakati tufayli yoki jamiyat o'zgarishi sababli, qora tanli o'quvchilarning aksariyati qora tanli maktablar okruglariga borishi 1980-yillarning boshlariga qadar birmuncha kamaydi va shu vaqtda bu foizlar ko'paya boshladi. 1990-yillarning oxiriga kelib, asosan ozchilikni tashkil etadigan maktablar okrugidagi qora tanli o'quvchilarning ulushi 1960-yillarning oxiriga kelib qaytgan.[56] Yilda Sietl maktabining 1-sonli okrugiga qarshi jamoat maktablariga jalb qilingan ota-onalar (2007), sud, agar maktab tizimi hukumat irqchiligidan tashqari boshqa ijtimoiy omillar tufayli irqiy muvozanatni buzgan bo'lsa, demak, davlat irqiy muvozanat uchun davlat aybdor bo'lganidek, maktablarni birlashtira olmaydi. Bu, ayniqsa, o'quvchilarning ota-onalari ushbu maktab tomonidan taqdim etilgan qulayliklar va bolaning ehtiyojlaridan kelib chiqib, farzandlari qaysi maktablarda o'qishini tanlashi mumkin bo'lgan charter maktab tizimida yaqqol namoyon bo'ladi. Ko'rinishidan, nizom maktabni tanlashda omil bo'ladi.[57]

Federal hukumatga ariza

Uning shartlariga ko'ra, ushbu band faqat davlat hukumatlarini cheklaydi. Biroq, Beshinchi o'zgartirish "s tegishli jarayon bilan boshlanadigan kafolat Bolling va Sharpga qarshi (1954), federal hukumatga ba'zi bir xil cheklovlarni qo'yish sifatida talqin qilingan: "Garchi Beshinchi tuzatish, faqat Shtatlarga tegishli bo'lgan o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish kabi teng himoya bandini o'z ichiga olmaydi, teng himoya tushunchalari va tegishli jarayon bir-birini istisno etmaydi. "[58] Yilda Lourens va Texasga qarshi (2003) Oliy sud qo'shib qo'ydi: "Muomala tengligi va erkinlikning asosiy kafolati bilan himoyalangan xatti-harakatni hurmat qilishni talab qilish uchun tegishli protsedura huquqi muhim jihatlar bilan bir-biriga bog'langan va oxirgi qaror bo'yicha qaror ikkala manfaatni ham ilgari suradi".[59]Ba'zi olimlarning ta'kidlashicha, sud qarori Bolling boshqa asoslarda erishilgan bo'lishi kerak edi. Masalan, Maykl V. Makkonnell Kongress hech qachon "Kolumbiya okrugi maktablarini ajratishni talab qilmagan" deb yozgan.[60] Ushbu asosga ko'ra, Vashington shahridagi maktablarni ajratish ruxsatsiz va shuning uchun noqonuniy edi.

Bosqichli tekshirish

Ning shubhasiz ahamiyatiga qaramay jigarrang, zamonaviy teng huquqli sud amaliyotining aksariyati boshqa holatlarda paydo bo'lgan, ammo hamma ham bunga qo'shilmaydi qaysi boshqa holatlar. Ko'pgina olimlarning ta'kidlashicha, Adolat fikri Xarlan Stoun yilda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Carolene Products Co. (1938)[61] teng huquqli himoya qilish uchun muhim burilish bo'lgan izohni o'z ichiga olgan,[62] ammo bu tasdiqlash bahsli.[63]

Qaysi kelib chiqishi aniq bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar, zamonaviy yondashuvning asosiy g'oyasi shundan iboratki, ko'proq sud tekshiruvi o'z ichiga olgan diskriminatsiya bilan bog'liq. "asosiy huquqlar "(nasl berish huquqi kabi) va shunga o'xshash sud tekshiruvi, agar diskriminatsiya qurboniga aylangani uchun u nishonga olingan bo'lsa, u"shubhali tasnif "(masalan, bitta irqiy guruh). Ushbu zamonaviy ta'limot kashshof bo'lgan Skinner va Oklaxoma (1942), ba'zi jinoyatchilarni nasl berishning asosiy huquqidan mahrum qilishni o'z ichiga olgan:[64]

O'z-o'zidan bir xil xatti-harakatni sodir etganlarga qonun tengsiz qo'l qo'ysa va boshqasini emas, birini sterilizatsiya qilsa, u zulm qilish uchun ma'lum bir irqni yoki millatni tanlagandek kamsitishni kamsitishga olib keladi.

1976 yilgacha Oliy sud odatda ikkita mumkin bo'lgan tekshiruv darajalaridan birini qo'llagan holda diskriminatsiya bilan shug'ullanishni tugatdi: nima deb nomlandi "qattiq nazorat "(shubhali sinf yoki asosiy huquq ishtirok etganda) yoki uning o'rniga yumshoqroq"ratsional asoslarni ko'rib chiqish ". Qattiq nazorat shuni anglatadiki, tortilgan nizom hukumatning" majburiy "manfaatiga xizmat qilish uchun" tor darajada moslashtirilgan "bo'lishi kerak va" kamroq cheklangan "alternativaga ega bo'lmasligi kerak. Aksincha, oqilona asosli tekshiruv shunchaki tortilgan nizomning" oqilona "bo'lishini talab qiladi. "qonuniy" hukumat manfaati bilan bog'liq ".

Biroq, 1976 yilda Kreyg va Boren, Sud "tekshiruvning yana bir pog'onasini qo'shdi" deb nomlanganoraliq tekshirish ", gender kamsitishlari bilan bog'liq. Sud boshqa darajalarni ham qo'shgan bo'lishi mumkin, masalan" takomillashtirilgan ratsional asos "tekshiruvi,[65] va "nihoyatda ishonarli asos" bilan tekshirish.[66]

Bularning barchasi "darajali" tekshirish sifatida tanilgan va unda ko'plab Adliya kabi tanqidchilar bo'lgan Thurgood Marshall diskret darajalar o'rniga "kamsitishni ko'rib chiqishda standartlar spektri" ni ilgari surgan.[67] adolat Jon Pol Stivens "faqat bitta teng himoya qilish qoidasi mavjud" ekanligini hisobga olib, tekshiruvning faqat bitta darajasini ta'kidladi.[67] Sud tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan barcha bosqichli strategiya, teng huquqlilik tamoyilini aksariyat qonunlar qandaydir tarzda kamsitadigan haqiqat bilan muvofiqlashtirishga qaratilgan.[68]

Tekshirish standartini tanlash ishning natijasini belgilashi mumkin va qat'iy tekshirish standarti ko'pincha "nazariy jihatdan qat'iy va aslida o'limga olib keladigan" deb ta'riflanadi.[69] To'g'ri tekshiruv darajasini tanlash uchun Adolat Antonin Skaliya sudni huquqlarni "sub'ektiv" deb aniqlashga yoki "sub'ektiv omillarga asoslanib", "Teng himoya to'g'risida" moddasi qabul qilinganda tushunilgan narsalarni tahlil qilib, "shubhali" deb topishga undaydi.[70]

Diskriminatsion niyat va turlicha ta'sir

Asosiy maqola: Turli xil ta'sir

Tengsizliklar ataylab yoki bexosdan kelib chiqishi mumkinligi sababli, Oliy sud qaroriga binoan, Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi bandning o'zi irqiy nomutanosibliklarga olib keladigan hukumat siyosatini taqiqlamaydi, garchi Kongress Konstitutsiyaning boshqa bandlariga binoan bila turib farqli ta'sirlarni bartaraf etish uchun ma'lum bir kuchga ega bo'lishi mumkin. . Ushbu mavzuga bag'ishlangan holda murojaat qilindi Arlington Heights va Metropolitan Housing Corp. (1977). Bunday holda, da'vogar, uy-joy quruvchi, shahar atrofi atrofidagi shaharni sudga berdi Chikago rad etdi qayta zona da'vogar kam daromadli, irqiy jihatdan yaxlit uy-joy qurishni maqsad qilgan er uchastkasi. Yuz tomondan, irqiy kamsituvchi niyatning aniq dalillari yo'q edi Arlington Heights's rejalashtirish komissiyasi. Natijada, irqiy jihatdan farq bor edi, chunki rad etish go'yoki afro-amerikaliklar va ispanlarning Adolat ko'chib o'tishiga to'sqinlik qildi. Lyuis Pauell, Sud uchun yozgan xabarida, "Tenglik himoyasi bandining buzilishini ko'rsatish uchun irqiy kamsituvchi niyat yoki maqsadni isbotlash talab etiladi" deb yozilgan. Turli xil ta'sir shunchaki ega dalil qiymat; "keskin" naqsh bo'lmasa, "ta'sir aniqlanmaydi".

Natijada Arlington balandligi ga o'xshash edi Vashington va Devisga qarshi (1976) va Teng himoya moddasi kafolat uchun ishlab chiqilmaganligi asosida himoya qilingan teng natijalar, aksincha teng imkoniyatlar; agar qonun chiqaruvchi organ bila turib, lekin irqiy jihatdan farq qiladigan ta'sirlarni tuzatmoqchi bo'lsa, buni keyingi qonunlar orqali amalga oshirishi mumkin.[71] Kamsituvchi davlat o'zining asl niyatini yashirishi mumkin, va mumkin bo'lgan echimlardan biri - turli xil ta'sirni kamsituvchi niyatning yanada kuchli dalili deb hisoblash.[72] Ushbu munozaralar hozirda akademikdir, chunki Oliy sud o'zining asosiy yondashuvini ko'rsatilganidek o'zgartirmadi Arlington balandligi.

Ushbu qoida sudning teng huquqli himoya qilish bandiga muvofiq vakolatlarini qanday cheklashiga misol uchun qarang Makkleskiy va Kemp (1987). U holda qora tanli kishi oq tanli politsiyachini o'ldirishda ayblanib, Jorjiya shtatida o'limga mahkum etilgan. Tadqiqot shuni ko'rsatdiki, oq tanlilar qotillari qora tanli qotillarga qaraganda o'limga mahkum etilishi mumkin.[73] Sud, himoyaning ushbu ma'lumotlar Gruziya qonun chiqaruvchi va ijro etuvchi hokimiyati tomonidan zarur bo'lgan kamsituvchi niyatini namoyish etganligini isbotlamaganligini aniqladi.

"To'xtang va Frisk ”Nyu-Yorkdagi siyosat zobitlarga shubhali ko'rinadigan har qanday odamni to'xtatishga imkon beradi. Politsiya to'xtash joylari ma'lumotlari shuni ko'rsatadiki, o'zgaruvchanlikni nazorat qilganda ham qora tanli va ispan millatiga mansub odamlar oq tanlilarga qaraganda tez-tez to'xtatib turilgan, bu statistika 1990 yillarning oxirlariga to'g'ri keladi. Qora tanli odamlarning politsiya to'xtashining nomutanosibligini tavsiflash uchun yaratilgan atama "Qora rangda haydash". Ushbu atama hech qanday jinoyat sodir etmagan begunoh qora tanlilarni to'xtatish uchun ishlatiladi. Hamma odamlarni bir xil himoya qilish va qonun bo'yicha teng munosabatni ta'minlash uchun tuzilgan Teng himoya qilish to'g'risidagi moddadan turli xil ozchilik aholiga nisbatan noto'g'ri munosabatda bo'lish uchun foydalaniladi.

Ovoz berish huquqlari

Justice John Marshall Harlan II sought to interpret the Equal Protection Clause in the context of Section 2 of the same amendment

Oliy sud qaror qabul qildi Nikson va Xerndon (1927) that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the vote based on race. The first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in Beyker va Karr (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the Tennessi davlat qonun chiqaruvchi organi were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal Protection Clause.

It may seem counterintuitive that the Equal Protection Clause should provide for equal ovoz berish huquqlari; after all, it would seem to make the O'n beshinchi o'zgartirish va O'n to'qqizinchi o'zgartirish ortiqcha. Indeed, it was on this argument, as well as on the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, that Justice Jon M. Xarlan (the grandson of the earlier Justice Harlan) relied in his dissent from Reynolds. Harlan quoted the congressional debates of 1866 to show that the framers did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to extend to voting rights, and in reference to the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, he said:

If constitutional amendment was the only means by which all men and, later, women, could be guaranteed the right to vote at all, even for federal officers, how can it be that the far less obvious right to a particular kind of apportionment of davlat legislatures ... can be conferred by judicial construction of the Fourteenth Amendment? [Emphasis in the original.]

Harlan also relied on the fact that Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment "expressly recognizes the States' power to deny 'or in any way' abridge the right of their inhabitants to vote for 'the members of the [state] Legislature.'"[74] Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a specific federal response to such actions by a state: reduction of a state's representation in Congress. However, the Supreme Court has instead responded that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Sevgi Virjiniyaga qarshi ); for any discrimination in fundamental rights to be constitutional, the Court requires the legislation to pass strict scrutiny. Under this theory, equal protection jurisprudence has been applied to voting rights.

A recent use of equal protection doctrine came in Bush va Gor (2000). At issue was the controversial recount in Florida natijasida 2000 yilgi prezident saylovi. There, the Supreme Court held that the different standards of counting ballots across Florida violated the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court used four of its rulings from 1960s voting rights cases (one of which was Reynolds va Sims ) to support its ruling in Bush v. Gore. It was not this holding that proved especially controversial among commentators, and indeed, the proposition gained seven out of nine votes; Adolatlar Janubi va Breyer joined the majority of five—but only for the finding that there was an Equal Protection violation. Much more controversial was the remedy that the Court chose, namely, the cessation of a statewide recount.[75]

Sex, disability, and sexual orientation

Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment did not forbid sex discrimination to the same extent as other forms of discrimination. On the one hand, Section Two of the amendment specifically discouraged states from interfering with the voting rights of "males", which made the amendment anathema to many women when it was proposed in 1866.[76] On the other hand, as feminists like Viktoriya Vudxull pointed out, the word "person" in the Equal Protection Clause was apparently chosen deliberately, instead of a masculine term that could have easily been used instead.[77]

Each state can guarantee more equality than does the Equal Protection Clause. Masalan, holati Vayoming granted women the right to vote even before the O'n to'qqizinchi o'zgartirish buni talab qildi.

In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reed va Reed, extending the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect women from sex discrimination, in situations where there is no rational basis for the discrimination.[78] That level of scrutiny was boosted to an intermediate level in Kreyg va Boren (1976).[79]

The Supreme Court has been disinclined to extend full "shubhali tasnif " status (thus making a law that categorizes on that basis subject to greater judicial scrutiny) for groups other than racial minorities and religious groups. In Kleburne shahri va Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), the Court refused to make the rivojlanish nuqsoni a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Thurgood Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court did appear to examine the City of Cleburne's denial of a permit to a group home for intellectually disabled people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.[80]

Sud qarori Romer va Evans (1996) struck down a Kolorado constitutional amendment aimed at denying homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or [a] claim of discrimination." The Court rejected as "implausible" the dissent's argument that the amendment would not deprive homosexuals of general protections provided to everyone else but rather would merely prevent "special treatment of homosexuals."[81] Xuddi shunday Kleburne shahri, Romer decision seemed to employ a markedly higher level of scrutiny than the nominally applied rational-basis test.[82]

Yilda Lourens va Texasga qarshi (2003), the Court struck down a Texas statute prohibiting gomoseksual sodomiya on substantive due process grounds. Adolatda Sandra Day O'Konnor 's opinion concurring in the judgment, however, she argued that by prohibiting only gomoseksual sodomy, and not heteroseksual sodomy as well, Texas's statute did not meet rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause; her opinion prominently cited Kleburne shahri, and also relied in part on Romer. Notably, O'Connor's opinion did not claim to apply a higher level of scrutiny than mere rational basis, and the Court has not extended suspect-class status to jinsiy orientatsiya.

While the courts have applied rational-basis scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, it has been argued that discrimination based on sex should be interpreted to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, in which case intermediate scrutiny could apply to gay rights cases.[83] Other scholars disagree, arguing that "homophobia" is distinct from sexism, in a sociological sense, and so treating it as such would be an unacceptable judicial shortcut.[84]

In 2013, the Court struck down part of the federal Nikohni himoya qilish to'g'risidagi qonun, yilda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi. No state statute was in question, and therefore the Equal Protection Clause did not apply. The Court did employ similar principles, however, in combination with federalizm tamoyillar. The Court did not purport to use any level of scrutiny more demanding than rational basis review, according to law professor Ervin Chemerinskiy.[85] The four dissenting justices argued that the authors of the statute were rational.[86]

In 2015, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.

Tasdiqlovchi harakat

Shuningdek qarang: Qo'shma Shtatlardagi ijobiy harakatlar

Tasdiqlovchi harakat is the consideration of race, gender, or other factors, to benefit an underrepresented group or to address past injustices done to that group. Individuals who belong to the group are preferred over those who do not belong to the group, for example in educational admissions, hiring, promotions, awarding of contracts, and the like.[87] Such action may be used as a "tie-breaker" if all other factors are inconclusive, or may be achieved through kvotalar, which allot a certain number of benefits to each group.

Davomida Qayta qurish, Congress enacted race-conscious programs primarily to assist newly freed slaves who had personally been denied many advantages earlier in their lives. Such legislation was enacted by many of the same people who framed the Equal Protection Clause, though that clause did not apply to such federal legislation, and instead only applied to state legislation.[88] Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to private universities and other private businesses, which are free to practice affirmative action unless prohibited by federal statute or state law.

Several important affirmative action cases to reach the Supreme Court have concerned government pudratchilar -masalan; misol uchun, Adarand Constructors va Peña (1995) va Richmond shahri va J.A. Croson Co. (1989). But the most famous cases have dealt with affirmative action as practiced by davlat universitetlari: Kaliforniya universiteti regentslari Bakkega qarshi (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter va Bollinger va Gratz va Bollinger.

Yilda Bakke, the Court held that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but that educational institutions could legally use race as one of many factors to consider in their kirish jarayon. Yilda Grutter va Gratz, the Court upheld both Bakke as a precedent and the admissions policy of the Michigan universiteti yuridik fakulteti. Yilda dikta, however, Justice O'Connor, writing for the Court, said she expected that in 25 years, racial preferences would no longer be necessary. Yilda Gratz, the Court invalidated Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, on the grounds that unlike the law school's policy, which treated race as one of many factors in an admissions process that looked to the individual applicant, the undergraduate policy used a point system that was excessively mechanistic.

In these affirmative action cases, the Supreme Court has employed, or has said it employed, strict scrutiny, since the affirmative action policies challenged by the plaintiffs categorized by race. The policy in Grutter, and a Harvard College admissions policy praised by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, passed muster because the Court deemed that they were narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity. On one side, critics have argued—including Justice Klarens Tomas in his dissent to Grutter—that the scrutiny the Court has applied in some cases is much less searching than true strict scrutiny, and that the Court has acted not as a principled legal institution but as a biased political one.[89] On the other side, it is argued that the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is to prevent the socio-political subordination of some groups by others, not to prevent classification; since this is so, non-invidious classifications, such as those used by affirmative action programs, should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny.[90]

Shuningdek qarang

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ Failinger, Marie (2009). "Equal protection of the laws". In Schultz, David Andrew (ed.). Amerika huquqining entsiklopediyasi. Infobase. 152-53 betlar. ISBN  9781438109916. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2020 yil 24-iyulda. The equal protection clause guarantees the right of "similarly situated" people to be treated the same way by the law.
  2. ^ "Fair Treatment by the Government: Equal Protection". GeorgiaLegalAid.org. Carl Vinson Institute of Government at University of Georgia. 30 iyul 2004 yil. Arxivlangan asl nusxasi 2020 yil 20 martda. Olingan 24 iyul, 2020. The basic intent of equal protection is to make sure that people are treated as equally as possible under our legal system. For example, it is to see that everyone who gets a speeding ticket will face the samEpocedures [sic!]. A further intent is to ensure that all Americans are provided with equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas. [...] The U.S. Constitution makes a similar provision in the Fourteenth Amendment. It says that no state shall make or enforce any law that will "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." These provisions require the government to treat persons equally and impartially.
  3. ^ "Teng himoya". Legal Information Institute at Kornell huquq fakulteti. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2020 yil 22 iyunda. Olingan 24 iyul, 2020. 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.
  4. ^ Antieau, Chester James (1952). "Equal Protection outside the Clause". Kaliforniya qonunchiligini ko'rib chiqish. 40 (3): 362–377. doi:10.2307/3477928. JSTOR  3477928.
  5. ^ a b "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)". Yustiya qonuni. Olingan 2018-11-10.
  6. ^ "Dred Scott, 150 Years Ago". Oliy ta'limdagi qora tanlilar jurnali (55): 19. 2007. JSTOR  25073625.
  7. ^ Swisher, Carl Brent (1957). "Dred Scott One Hundred Years After". Siyosat jurnali. 19 (2): 167–183. doi:10.2307/2127194. JSTOR  2127194. S2CID  154345582.
  8. ^ For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see generally Foner, Erik (1988). Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863—1877. Nyu-York: Harper va Row. ISBN  978-0-06-091453-0., shu qatorda; shu bilan birga Brest, Paul; va boshq. (2000). Konstitutsiyaviy qarorlarni qabul qilish jarayonlari. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business. 241–242 betlar. ISBN  978-0-7355-1250-4.
  9. ^ See Brest va boshq. (2000), pp. 242–46.
  10. ^ Rozen, Jeffri. Oliy sud: Amerikani belgilaydigan shaxsiyat va raqobat, p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).
  11. ^ Newman, Roger. The Constitution and its Amendments, Jild 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).
  12. ^ Xardi, Devid. "Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment As Reflected in the Print Media of 1866-68", Whittier Law Review, Vol. 30, p. 695 (2008-2009).
  13. ^ See Foner (1988), passim. Shuningdek qarang Ackerman, Bruce A. (2000). We the People, Volume 2: Transformations. Kembrij: Belknap Press. pp. 99–252. ISBN  978-0-674-00397-2.
  14. ^ a b Tsukert, Maykl P. (1992). "Completing the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment and Constitutional Rights". Publius. 22 (2): 69–91. doi:10.2307/3330348. JSTOR  3330348.
  15. ^ a b "Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)". Yustiya qonuni. Olingan 2018-11-30.
  16. ^ a b v Perry, Michael J. (1979). "Modern Equal Protection: A Conceptualization and Appraisal". Columbia Law Review. 79 (6): 1023–1084. doi:10.2307/1121988. JSTOR  1121988.
  17. ^ a b Boyd, William M. (1955). "The Second Emancipation". Filon. 16 (1): 77–86. doi:10.2307/272626. JSTOR  272626.
  18. ^ Sumner, Charles, and Daniel Murray Pamphlet Collection. . Washington: S. & R. O. Polkinhorn, Printers, 1874. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/12005313/.
  19. ^ Frank, Jon P.; Munro, Robert F. (1950). "The Original Understanding of "Equal Protection of the Laws"". Columbia Law Review. 50 (2): 131–169. doi:10.2307/1118709. JSTOR  1118709.
  20. ^ "Constitution of the United States - We the People". launchknowledge.com.
  21. ^ "Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)". Yustiya qonuni. Olingan 2018-11-10.
  22. ^ a b Kelly, Alfred. "Clio and the Court: An Illicit Love Affair[doimiy o'lik havola ]", Oliy sud tekshiruvi p. 148 (1965) reprinted in The Supreme Court in and of the Stream of Power (Kermit Hall ed., Psychology Press 2000).
  23. ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision ", Garvard qonuni sharhi, Jild 69, pp. 35-37 (1955). Bingham was speaking on February 27, 1866. Qarang stenogramma.
  24. ^ Curtis, Michael. "Resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause and Revising the Slaughter-House Cases Without Exhuming Lochner: Individual Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment ", Boston kollejining yuridik sharhi, Jild 38 (1997).
  25. ^ Glidden, William. Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment: Enforcing Liberty and Equality in the States, p. 79 (Lexington Books 2013).
  26. ^ Mount, Stiv (2007 yil yanvar). "Konstitutsiyaviy o'zgarishlarni tasdiqlash". Olingan 24-fevral, 2007.
  27. ^ Flack, Horace. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, p. 232 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1908). For Bingham's full speech, see Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 1st Sess., p. 83 (March 31, 1871).
  28. ^ requires citation
  29. ^ Valenshteyn, Piter. Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law--An American History, p. 253 (Palgrave Macmillan, Jan 17, 2004). The four of the original thirteen states are New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Id.
  30. ^ Pasko, Peggi. Tabiiy ravishda nima keladi: Amerikada missegenatsiya qonuni va irqni yaratish, p. 58 (Oxford U. Press 2009).
  31. ^ Calabresi, Steven and Matthews, Andrea. "Originalism and Loving v. Virginia", Brigham Young universiteti yuridik tekshiruvi (2012).
  32. ^ Foner, Erik. Qayta qurish: Amerikaning tugallanmagan inqilobi, 1863–1877, pp. 321–322 (HarperCollins 2002).
  33. ^ Bickel, Alexander. "The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision ", Garvard qonuni sharhi, Jild 69, pp. 35–37 (1955).
  34. ^ Finkelman, Pol. "Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Antebellum Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment ", ichida The Facts of Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of John Hope Franklin, p. 19 (Eric Anderson and Alfred A. Moss, eds., LSU Press, 1991).
  35. ^ Woloch, Nancy. Ayollar va Amerika tajribasi, p. 185 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).
  36. ^ Wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election?, p. 27 (CQ PRESS 2013).
  37. ^ McInerney, Daniel. A Traveller's History of the USA, p. 212 (Interlink Books, 2001).
  38. ^ Kerber, Linda. Xonim bo'lish uchun konstitutsiyaviy huquq yo'q: ayollar va fuqarolik majburiyatlari, p. 133 (Macmillan, 1999).
  39. ^ Hik Vo va Xopkins, 118 BIZ. 356 (1886).
  40. ^ "Annotation 18 - Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 – Rights Guaranteed: Equal Protection of the Laws: Scope and application state action". FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Law & Legal Information by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. Olingan 23 noyabr 2013.
  41. ^ For a summary of the social, political and historical background to Baxtli, qarang Vudvord, C. Vann (2001). Jim Krouning g'alati karerasi. Nyu-York: Oksford universiteti matbuoti. pp. 6 and pp. 69–70. ISBN  978-0-19-514690-5.
  42. ^ For a skeptical evaluation of Harlan, see Chin, Gabriel J. (1996). " Baxtli Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases". Ayova shtatidagi qonunlarni ko'rib chiqish. 82: 151. ISSN  0021-0552. SSRN  1121505.
  43. ^ Qarang Santa-Klara okrugi va Tinch okeanining temir yo'li, 118 BIZ. 394 (1886). In the summary of the case Bancroft wrote that the Court declared that it did not need to hear argument on whether the Equal Protection Clause protected corporations, because "we are all of the opinion that it does." Id. at 396. Chief Justice Morrison Uayt announced from the bench that the Court would not hear argument on the question whether the equal protection clause applied to corporations: "We are all of the opinion that it does." The background and developments from this utterance are treated in H. Graham, Everyman's Constitution--Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fitna nazariyasi, and American Constitutionalism (1968), chs. 9, 10, and pp. 566-84. adolat Ugo Blek, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77, 85 (1938), and Justice Uilyam O. Duglas, in Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562, 576 (1949), have disagreed that corporations are persons for equal protection purposes.
  44. ^ Qarang Providence Bank Billingsga qarshi, 29 BIZ. 514 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men." Nevertheless, the concept of corporate personhood remains controversial. Qarang Mayer, Carl J. (1990). "Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights". Xastings huquq jurnali. 41: 577. ISSN  0017-8322.
  45. ^ Qarang Currie, David P. (1987). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The New Deal, 1931–1940". Chikago universiteti yuridik sharhi (Qo'lyozma taqdim etilgan). 54 (2): 504–555. doi:10.2307/1599798. JSTOR  1599798.
  46. ^ Feldman, Nuh. Chayonlar: FDR Buyuk Oliy sudi sudyalarining janglari va g'alabalari, p. 145 (Hachette Digital 2010).
  47. ^ Umuman ko'ring Morris, Aldon D. (1986). Origin of the Civil Rights Movements: Black Communities Organizing for Change. Nyu-York: Bepul matbuot. ISBN  978-0-02-922130-3.
  48. ^ Karlan, Pamela S. (2009). "What Can Brown® do for You?: Neutral Principles and the Struggle over the Equal Protection Clause". Dyuk huquqi jurnali. 58 (6): 1049–1069. JSTOR  20684748.
  49. ^ For an exhaustive history of the jigarrang case from start to finish, see Kluger, Richard (1977). Oddiy adolat. Nyu-York: Amp. ISBN  978-0-394-72255-9.
  50. ^ Shimsky, MaryJane. "Hesitating Between Two Worlds": The Civil Rights Odyssey of Robert H. Jackson, p. 468 (ProQuest, 2007).
  51. ^ Men noroziman: Oliy sud sud ishlarida ziddiyatli fikrlar, pp. 133–151 (Mark Tushnet, ed. Beacon Press, 2008).
  52. ^ For a comprehensive history of school desegregation from jigarrang orqali Milliken (one on which this article relies for its assertions), see Brest va boshq. (2000), pp. 768–794.
  53. ^ Tarixi uchun Amerika political branches' engagement with the Supreme Court's commitment to desegregation (and vice versa), see Powe, Lucas A., Jr. (2001). Uorren sudi va Amerika siyosati. Kembrij, MA: Belknap Press. ISBN  978-0-674-00683-6.va Kotz, Nick (2004). Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America. Boston: Xyuton Mifflin. ISBN  978-0-618-08825-6. For more on the debate summarized in the text, see, e.g., Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1993). Bo'sh umid: sudlar ijtimoiy o'zgarishlarni keltirib chiqarishi mumkinmi?. Chikago: Chikago universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  978-0-226-72703-5.va Klarman, Michael J. (1994). "jigarrang, Racial Change, and the Civil Rights Movement". Virjiniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish. 80 (1): 7–150. doi:10.2307/1073592. JSTOR  1073592.
  54. ^ Reynolds, Troy. "Education Finance Reform Litigation and Separation of Powers: Kentucky Makes Its Contribution," Kentukki yuridik jurnali, Jild 80 (1991): 309, 310.
  55. ^ Minow, Martha. "Confronting the Seduction of Choice: Law, Education and American Pluralism", Yel huquqi jurnali, Jild 120, p. 814, 819-820 (2011)(Pirs "entrenched the pattern of a two-tiered system of schooling, which sanctions private opt-outs from publicly run schools").
  56. ^ For data and analysis, see Orfield (July 2001). "Schools More Separate" (PDF). Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi (PDF) 2007-06-28. Olingan 2008-07-16.
  57. ^ Jacobs, Nicholas (8 August 2011). "Racial, Economic, and Linguistic Segregation: Analyzing Market Supports in the District of Columbia's Public Charter Schools". Ta'lim va shahar jamiyati. 45 (1): 120–141. doi:10.1177/0013124511407317. S2CID  144814662. Olingan 28 oktyabr 2013.
  58. ^ "FindLaw | Ishlar va kodlar". Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com. 1954-05-17. Olingan 2012-08-13.
  59. ^ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 BIZ. 598 (2003), at page 2482
  60. ^ Balkin, J. M.; Bruce A. Ackerman (2001). "II qism". What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision. va boshq. Nyu-York universiteti matbuoti. p. 168.
  61. ^ 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938). For a theory of judicial review based on Stone's footnote, see Ely, John Hart (1981). Demokratiya va ishonchsizlik. Kembrij, MA: Garvard universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  0-674-19637-6.
  62. ^ Goldstein, Leslie. "Between the Tiers: The New(est) Equal Protection and Bush v. Gore Arxivlandi 2016-03-04 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi ", Pensilvaniya universiteti konstitutsiyaviy huquq jurnali, Jild 4, p. 372 (2002) .
  63. ^ Farber, Daniel and Frickey, Philip. "Is Carolene Products Dead--Reflections on Affirmative Action and the Dynamics of Civil Rights Legislation ", Kaliforniya qonunchiligini ko'rib chiqish, Jild 79, p. 685 (1991). Farber and Frickey point out that "only Chief Justice Hughes, Justice Brandeis, and Justice Roberts joined Justice Stone's footnote", and in any event "It is simply a myth ... that the process theory of footnote four in Carolene Products is, or ever has been, the primary justification for invalidating laws embodying prejudice against racial minorities."
  64. ^ Skinner va Oklaxoma, 316 AQSh 535 (1942). Sometimes the "suspect" classification strand of the modern doctrine is attributed to Korematsu Qo'shma Shtatlarga qarshi (1944), but Korematsu did not involve the Fourteenth Amendment, and moreover it came later than the Skinner opinion (which clearly stated that both deprivation of fundamental rights as well as oppression of a particular race or nationality were invidious).
  65. ^ Qarang Kleburne shahri va Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)
  66. ^ Qarang Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Virjiniya (1996).
  67. ^ a b Fleming, Jeyms. "'There is Only One Equal Protection Clause': An Appreciation of Justice Stevens's Equal Protection Jurisprudence ", Fordham qonun sharhi, Jild 74, p. 2301, 2306 (2006).
  68. ^ Qarang Romer va Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996): "the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons."
  69. ^ Curry, James et al. Konstitutsiyaviy hukumat: Amerika tajribasi, p. 282 (Kendall Hunt 2003) (attributing the phrase to Gerald Gunther).
  70. ^ Domino, John. Civil Rights & Liberties in the 21st Century, pp. 337-338 (Pearson 2009).
  71. ^ Herzog, Don (March 22, 2005). "Constitutional Rights: Two". Left2Right. Note that the Court has put significant limits on the Kongressning ijro etuvchi kuchi. Qarang Boerne shahri va Flores (1997), Alabama universiteti Vasiylik kengashi Garretga qarshi (2001) va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari va Morrison (2000). The Court has also interpreted federal statutory law as limiting the power of states to correct disparate effects. Qarang Ricci va DeStefano (2009).
  72. ^ Qarang Krieger, Linda Hamilton (1995). "The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Protection Opportunity". Stenford qonuni sharhi. 47 (6): 1161–1248. doi:10.2307/1229191. hdl:10125/66110. JSTOR  1229191.va Lawrence, Charles R., III (1987). "Reckoning with Unconscious Racism". Stenford qonuni sharhi. 39 (2): 317–388. doi:10.2307/1228797. hdl:10125/65975. JSTOR  1228797.
  73. ^ Baldus, Devid S.; Pulaski, Charlz; Vudvort, Jorj (1983). "O'lim hukmlarini qiyosiy ko'rib chiqish: Gruziya tajribasini empirik o'rganish". Jinoyat huquqi va kriminologiya jurnali (Qo'lyozma taqdim etilgan). 74 (3): 661–753. doi:10.2307/1143133. JSTOR  1143133.
  74. ^ Van Olstin, Uilyam. "The Fourteenth Amendment, the Right to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty-Ninth Congress", Oliy sud tekshiruvi, p. 33 (1965).
  75. ^ For criticisms as well as several defenses of the Court's decision, see Bush v. Gore: The Question of Legitimacy, tahrirlangan Ackerman, Bruce A. (2002). Bush v. Gore : the question of legitimacy. Nyu-Xeyven: Yel universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  978-0-300-09379-7. Another much-cited collection of essays is Sunshteyn, Kass; Epshteyn, Richard (2001). The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chikago: Chikago universiteti matbuoti. ISBN  978-0-226-21307-1.
  76. ^ Cullen-Dupont, Kathryn. Amerikadagi ayollar tarixi entsiklopediyasi, pp. 91-92 (Infobase Publishing, Jan 1, 2009).
  77. ^ Hymowitz, Carol and Weissman, Michaele. A History of Women in America, p. 128 (Random House Digital, 2011).
  78. ^ "Reed va Reed - Significance, Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972"
  79. ^ Kreyg va Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
  80. ^ Qarang Pettinga, Gayle Lynn (1987). "Tishlash bilan oqilona asos: har qanday boshqa nom bilan oraliq tekshirish". Indiana Law Journal. 62: 779. ISSN  0019-6665.; Vadvani, Neelum J. (2006). "Ratsional sharhlar, mantiqsiz natijalar". Texas qonunchiligini ko'rib chiqish. 84: 801, 809–811. ISSN  0040-4411.
  81. ^ Kuligowski, Monte. "Romer v. Evans: Judicial Judgment or Emotive Utterance?," Fuqarolik huquqlari va iqtisodiy rivojlanish jurnali, Jild 12 (1996).
  82. ^ Joslin, Courtney (1997). "Equal Protection and Anti-Gay Legislation". Garvard fuqarolik huquqlari-fuqarolik erkinliklari to'g'risidagi qonunni ko'rib chiqish. 32: 225, 240. ISSN  0017-8039. The Romer Court applied a more 'active,' Kleburne-like rational basis standard ...; Farrell, Robert C. (1999). "Successful Rational Basis Claims in the Supreme Court from the 1971 Term Through Romer va Evans". Indiana qonun sharhi. 32: 357. ISSN  0019-6665.
  83. ^ Qarang Koppelman, Andrew (1994). "Why Discrimination against Lesbians and Gay Men is Sex Discrimination". Nyu-York universiteti yuridik sharhi. 69: 197. ISSN  0028-7881.; Shuningdek qarang Frikka va Linch, 491 F.Supp. 381, 388, fn. 6 (1980), bo'shatilgan 627 F.2d 1088 [case decided on First Amendment free-speech grounds, but "This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex."]
  84. ^ Gerstmann, Evan. Same Sex Marriage and the Constitution, p. 55 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
  85. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Justice Kennedy's World Arxivlandi 2013-07-09 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi ", Milliy qonun jurnali (July 1, 2013): "There is another similarity between his opinion in Windsor and his earlier ones in Romer and Lawrence: the Supreme Court invalidated the law without using heightened scrutiny for sexual-orientation discrimination ... A law based on animus fails to meet even rational-basis review so there was no need to adopt a higher level of scrutiny."
  86. ^ Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vindzorga qarshi, No. 12-307, 2013 BL 169620, 118 FEP Cases 1417 (U.S. June 26, 2013).
  87. ^ "Ijobiy harakat". Stenford universiteti. Olingan 6 aprel, 2012.
  88. ^ Qarang Schnapper, Eric (1985). "Affirmative Action and the Legislative History of the Fourteenth Amendment" (PDF). Virjiniya qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish. 71 (5): 753–798. doi:10.2307/1073012. JSTOR  1073012.
  89. ^ Qarang Schuck, Peter H. (September 5, 2003). "Ko'zgular Grutter". Huquqshunos. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on 2005-09-09.
  90. ^ Qarang Siegel, Reva B. (2004). "Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over jigarrang". Garvard qonuni sharhi (Qo'lyozma taqdim etilgan). 117 (5): 1470–1547. doi:10.2307/4093259. JSTOR  4093259.; Karter, Stiven L. (1988). "When Victims Happen to Be Black". Yel huquqi jurnali. 97 (3): 420–447. doi:10.2307/796412. JSTOR  796412.

Tashqi havolalar