Equal Protection Clause and its Application in MSU and LAPD Policies

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

CASE STUDY1
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

CASE STUDY2
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).