14th Amendment focusing on the Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause is one of the major provisions of the 14th amendment to the U.S constitution that focuses on giving equal rights to citizens and making law equal for every citizen. The 14th amendment made every citizen equal by adding the following laws and rights to the constitution:

• All persons who are born in the U.S or have been naturalized in the U.S and also are subject to its jurisdiction will be the citizen of the U.S and the state where they reside in.

•  The states will not have the right to make any law that will hinder the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the U.S.

• The states will also don’t have the right to take away anyone’s life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

• Every citizen of the U.S will have equal protection of the laws and the states could not deny for it within its jurisdiction. It means that the law will be equal for everyone and no the states cannot do any type of discrimination.

Often there are many questions related to the amendment like why was such a clause made, what was the intention for making such a clause, etc. Right after the Civil War, it was felt by many that the African Americans were repressed, and to remove such discrimination and to treat everyone equally, the Equal Protection Law came into force. 

The Primary motivation for the clause was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, then later the 14th amendment that was ratified in 1868, applied more restriction to the states than was applied before the Civil War.

Supreme Court Rulings involving the 14th amendment equal protection Clause:

• Loving v. Virginia (1967)

• Case: In 1958, the two residents of Virginia Mildred Jeter (a black woman) and Richard Loving (white man), married in the District of Columbia. After being married they returned to Virginia and after five weeks of their marriage, the couple was arrested by local sheriffs and was charged for violating Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law (the law that banned inter-racial marriages). The couple was sent to jail for a year.

The Lovings then appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia but the court upheld it, then the couple appealed to the supreme court of the U.S.

• Supreme Court ruling: The supreme court heard the case and in a unanimous decision in the favor of Loving’s and decision struck down the anti-miscegenation law of Virginia and removed the restriction on race-based restriction on marriages. In response to it, Virginia argues and said the anti-miscegenation law did not violate the Equal Protection clause as the law was the same for both the whites and blacks, whereas the supreme court found that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as it was based on the distinction made according to the race.

• McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1950)

• Case: George W. McLaurin (African American) student who had a master’s degree in education was denied admission to the University of Oklahoma (to pursue a Doctorate in education degree) because of his race. The Oklahoma law at that time considered teaching both the black and whites together as a misdemeanor.

McLaurin files a case claiming that the law was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clause. The three-judge panel in the federal trial court determined that the University should admit McLaurin and give the education but declared that the Law of Oklahoma that allows the officials to deny the admission is null and void and the court struck such laws that prevented McLaurin from getting admitted to the University.

Now the University cannot deny the admission of McLaurin and he got admission to the university. But the university tried to segregate him on the campus. He had to sit in a different seat in the classroom, at a separate desk in the library, separate seats in the cafeteria, sometimes eat at different times.

McLaurin then again appealed to the district court for the separate facilities but the court denied his petition. Then McLaurin took the case to the U.S supreme court.

• Supreme Court Ruling: In a Unanimous decision, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, the supreme court reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, all should be treated equally and the state officials cannot discriminate against anyone based on race.

While defending the state of Oklahoma said that the restrictions imposed on the African American students were nominal but the court dismissed the argument as the treatment made the plaintiff apart from other students.