Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes. The Supreme Court, however, has not decided whether sexual orientation fits into any identified class. It was the first time a federal court had applied quasi-suspect classification in a sexual orientation case. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.
Striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. Northern California discussed this type of classification, but applied heightened scrutiny without specifically labeling gays and lesbians a suspect or quasi-suspect class in its decision. Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Gender and legitimacy of birth have been held to be quasi-suspect classes. State acts that affect unlawful immigrants are generally analyzed with rational basis review unless the topic is education of children, in which case they are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny based on Plyler v. In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny. As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. For purposes of state law, legal aliens are a suspect class ( Graham v. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. Īs the law currently stands, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity is considered a federal suspect class, although many states do consider them such.Īlienage, or the state of being an alien, i.e. Bruning, but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class, but on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review. The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v.
They possess an immutable or highly visible trait.The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.Some of the criteria that have been cited include: The United States Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect class, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.
0 kommentar(er)
