But laws that rely on so-called вЂњsuspect classificationsвЂќ are assessed under вЂњheightened scrutiny.вЂќ Here, the government must have important or compelling reasons to justify the discrimination, and the discrimination must be carefully tailored to serve those reasons. Most laws are assessed under so-called вЂњrational basis scrutiny.вЂќ Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. The Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. We will address this question in our separate statements. These holdings have led to an ongoing debate for the last several decades over whether it is unconstitutional for governments to consider the race of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans as a positive factor in university admissions, employment, and government contracting. Virginia that the Supreme Court held that laws prohibiting interracial marriages violated Equal Protection.ДЄlthough the original purpose was to protect blacks from discrimination, the broad wording has led the Supreme Court to hold that all racial discrimination (including against whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans) is constitutionally suspect. For example, it was not until 1967 in Loving v. Brown was a turning point, but it was not the end of the struggle. Brown was a decisive turning point in a decades-long struggle to dismantle governmentally imposed segregation, not only in schools but throughout American society. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the reasoning of Plessy and held that separate schools for blacks and whites violated the Equal Protection Clause. вЂќ Plessy remained the law of the land until 1954, when it was overruled in Brown v.

In a famous dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan disagreed, stating вЂњur Constitution is color-blind. The decision cemented into place racist Jim Crow-era laws.

Ferguson (1896), the Court ruled by a 7-1 vote that so-called вЂњseparate but equalвЂќ facilities (in that case, train cars) for blacks and whites did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. If people were separated into different facilities by race, but those facilities were purportedly equally suitable, did that constitute discrimination? Historians have debated whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to end such segregation, but in Plessy v.

Near the end of the nineteenth century, the Court considered whether racial segregation by the government violated the Constitution. For example, despite its reference to вЂњstate,вЂќ the Clause has been read into the Fifth Amendment to prevent the federal government from discriminating as well. But the text of the Clause is worded very broadly and it has come a long way from its original purpose. Ratified as it was after the Civil War in 1868, there is little doubt what the Equal Protection Clause was intended to do: stop states from discriminating against blacks.

Equal protection clause