Issue:
The first issue in the case is whether MSU policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.
The second issue in the case is whether LAPD policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Rules:
Equal Protection Clause is embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and requires all the states and territories to ensure equal protection to all. It means that the states and the territories should impart equal protection to all and ensure equal to all the people and not discriminate them on any ground which is unlawful on any differences (Wright 2016).
The clause is the way to ensure validity to the provision of equality as stated in the Civil Rights Act 1866. The Act has guaranteed equal protection to all the people in its jurisdiction (Botts 2018). However, the inclusion of the provision in the Constitution of the US has given it a constitutional effect ensuring the right as a substantial constitutional restriction against the states. It is based on the doctrine of “Equal Justice under Law” which formed the foundation for the decision of Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) 347 US 483. In this case, the Supreme Court had decided to dismantle the racial segregation as the basis of discrimination among people residing in the community. the clause ensures equal protection as a restriction upon the state and local governments . However in Bolling vs. Shape (1954) 347 US 497, the Supreme Court stated that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution which ensures protection against the denial of life, or property by the government in an arbitral manner, is an existing protection clause with relation to the Equal Protection of all the people in a reverse incorporation manner. In Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) 60 US 393, the Supreme Court had given an adverse decision stating that the Black men had no legal rights within the jurisdiction of America, irrespective of their status of being free or bondage. The decision has been scrutinized as the need for the ratification of reconstruction Amendments leading to the establishment of Equal protection Clause (Feeley 2017). In Coleman vs. Miller (1939) 307 US 433, it was found that many states though initially opposed to the adoption of the Fourteenth Clause, they finally sought to the acceptance and the implementation of the Clause.
It has been argued by the scholars that the intention of the inclusion of the Clause is to solidify the implementation of the Civil Rights Act and not to ensure any restrictions on state (Leslie 2016). However, the majority of scholars have sought the wider approach stating that the main agenda for its recognition and implementation as a Constitutional restriction is to ensure that all people born or naturalized as American Citizens, being governed by the American jurisdiction laws, shall be treated equally (Lau, and Li 2017) including the Black Americans who have always been the subject of exclusion as stated in Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) (Condon 2016).
The Clause has been applied in various cases like Gritter vs. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 306 and Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 244 and has reflected affirmative action in its applicability unless prohibited by the federal statute or state law (Dworkin 2017). However, the Clause also has the reasonable restriction in the form of positive discrimination under which persons in various different circumstances can be given preference to establish equality among all. It means that equals be treated equally and unequals be treated unequally to bring unequal at par with the equals (Ramcharan 2017).
Application:
In the first scenario, it can be stated that MSU is a public university and hence, owing to their status of being the governed under the state jurisdiction, the Fourteenth Clause of Equality Protection Clause shall be applicable to it and its policies. Therefore, the policy discriminating the students on the ground of sex for the eligibility for playing in the University’s Football Team shall be held in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment Clause of the US Constitution.
In the second scenario, it can be stated that the intention of such discrimination of the LAPD was to ensure the past race discrimination to be eradicated while hiring. The policy is also based on the resources being available to the African American is not at par with the Americans like educational disadvantage and less number of minority patrol officers are directly linked with the racial segregation of schools till late 1970s. Hence, to provide them an opportunity to equality with the rest of the citizens and improve, such policy was implemented and therefore, according to positive discrimination, the policy of LAPD cannot be held in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Clause of Equality Protection to all.
Conclusion:
In the first scenario it can be concluded that the MSU policy violates the Equality Protection Clause.
In the second scenario, it can be held that the LAPD policy does not violate the Equality Protection Clause.
REFERENCE:
Ramcharan, B.G., 2017. Equality and nondiscrimination. In Equality and Non-Discrimination under International Law (pp. 29-52). Routledge.
Feeley, M., 2017. The Black Basis of Constitutional Development. In Crime, Law and Society (pp. 75-101). Routledge.
Botts, T. F. (2018). For Equals Only: Race, Equality, and the Equal Protection Clause. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lau, H. and Li, H., 2017. American Equal Protection and Global Convergence. Fordham L. Rev., 86, p.1251.
Leslie, C. R. (2016). The Geography of Equal Protection. Minn. L. Rev., 101, 1579.
Dworkin, R., 2017. Constitutionalism and Democracy 1. In Constitutionalism and Democracy (pp. 3-12). Routledge.
Condon, J.B., 2016. The Preempting of Equal Protection for Immigrants. Wash. & Lee L. Rev., 73, p.77.
Wright, R.G., 2016. Equal Protection and the Idea of Equality. Law & Ineq., 34, p.1.
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) 347 US 483
Bolling vs. Shape (1954) 347 US 497
Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) 60 US 393
Coleman vs. Miller (1939) 307 US 433
Gritter vs. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 306
Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 244
