Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

347 U.S. 475 (1954)

Vote: 9-0
Decision: Reversed
Majority: Warren, joined by Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton, Clark and Minton

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, Pete Hernandez, was indicted for the murder of one Joe Espinosa by a grand jury in Jackson County, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court … Prior to the trial, the petitioner, by his counsel, offered timely motions to quash the indictment and the jury panel. He alleged that persons of Mexican descent were systematically excluded from service as jury commissioners,’ grand jurors, and petit jurors, although there were such persons fully qualified to serve residing in Jackson County. The petitioner asserted that exclusion of this class deprived him, as a member of the class, of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motions. At the trial, the motions were renewed, further evidence taken, and the motions again denied. An allegation that the trial court erred in denying the motions was the sole basis of petitioner’s appeal. In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals considered and passed upon the substantial federal question raised by the petitioner …

Throughout our history differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of the courts in securing equal treatment under the laws. But community prejudices are not static, and from time to time other differences from the community norm may define other groups which need the same protection. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question of fact. When the existence of a distinct class is demonstrated, and it is further shown that the laws, as written or as applied, single out that class for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification, the guarantees of the Constitution have been violated. The Fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a “two-class theory”-that is, based upon differences between “white” and Negro …

The petitioner established that 14% of the population of Jackson County were persons with Mexican or Latin- American surnames, and that 11% of the males over 21 bore such names. The County Tax Assessor testified that 6 or 7 percent of the freeholders on the tax rolls of the County were persons of Mexican descent. The State of Texas stipulated that “for the last twenty-five years there is no record of any person with a Mexican or Latin American name having served on a jury commission, grand jury or petit jury in Jackson County.” The parties also stipulated that “there are some male persons of Mexican or Latin American descent in Jackson County who, by virtue of being citizens, householders, or freeholders, and having all other legal prerequisites to jury service, are eligible to serve as members of a jury commission, grand jury and/or petit jury.” …

To rebut the strong prima facie case of the denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution thus established, the State offered the testimony of five jury commissioners that they had not discriminated against persons of Mexican or Latin-American descent in selecting jurors. They stated that their only objective had been to select those whom they thought were best qualified. This testimony is not enough to overcome the petitioner’s case …

Circumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during some particular period. But it taxes our credulity to say that mere chance resulted in there being no members of this class among the over six thousand jurors called in the past 25 years. The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of any individual jury commissioner. The judgment of conviction must be reversed.

To say that this decision revives the rejected contention that the Fourteenth Amendment requires proportional representation of all the component ethnic groups of the community on every jury ignores the facts. The petitioner did not seek proportional representation, nor did he claim a right to have persons of Mexican descent sit on the particular juries which he faced.” His only claim is the right to be indicted and tried by juries from which all members of his class are not systematically excluded juries selected from among all qualified persons regardless of national origin or descent. To this much, he is entitled by the Constitution.

Reversed.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

411 U.S. 1 (1973)

Vote: 5-4
Decision: Reversed
Majority: Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist
Concurrence: Stewart
Dissent: White joined by Douglas and Brennan
Dissent: Marshall, joined by Douglas
Dissent: Brennan

MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit attacking the Texas system of financing public education was initiated by Mexican-American parents whose children attend the. elementary and secondary schools in the Edgewood Independent School District, an urban school district in San Antonio, Texas. They brought a class action on behalf of schoolchildren throughout the State who are members of minority groups or who are poor and reside in school districts having a low property tax base … The complaint was filed in the summer of 1968 and a three-judge court was impaneled in January 1969. In December, 1971, the panel rendered its judgment in a per curiam opinion holding the Texas school finance system unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State appealed, and we noted probable jurisdiction to consider the far-reaching constitutional questions presented …

Until recent times, Texas was a predominantly rural State, and its population and property wealth were spread relatively evenly across the State. Sizable differences in the value of assessable property between local school districts became increasingly evident as the State became more industrialized and as rural-to-urban population shifts became more pronounced … Recognizing the need for increased state funding to help offset disparities in local spending and to meet Texas’ changing educational requirements, the state legislature, in the late 1940’s, undertook a thorough evaluation of public education with an eye toward major reform … The Program calls for state and local contributions to a fund earmarked specifically for teacher salaries, operating expenses, and transportation costs. The State, supplying funds from its general revenues, finances approximately 80% of the Program, and the school districts are responsible — as a unit — for providing the remaining 20% … The district, in turn, finances its share of the Assignment out of revenues from local property taxation.

…

The school district in which appellees reside, the Edgewood Independent School District, has been compared throughout this litigation with the Alamo Heights Independent School District. This comparison between the least and most affluent districts in the San Antonio area serves to illustrate the manner in which the dual system of finance operates and to indicate the extent to which substantial disparities exist despite the State’s impressive progress in recent years. Edgewood is one of seven public school districts in the metropolitan area. Approximately 22,000 students are enrolled in its 25 elementary and secondary schools. The district is situated in the core-city sector of San Antonio in a residential neighborhood that has little commercial or industrial property. The residents are predominantly of Mexican-American descent: approximately 90% of the student population is Mexican-American and over 6% is Negro. The average assessed property value per pupil is $5,960-the lowest in the metropolitan area-and the median family income ($4,686) is also the lowest. At an equalized tax rate of $1.05 per $100 of assessed property-the highest in the metropolitan area-the district contributed $26 to the education of each child for the 1967- 1968 school year above its Local Fund Assignment for the Minimum Foundation Program. The Foundation Program contributed $222 per pupil for a state-local total of $248. Federal funds added another $108 for a total of $356 per pupil.

Alamo Heights is the most affluent school district in San Antonio. Its six schools, housing approximately 5,000 students, are situated in a residential community quite unlike the Edgewood District. The school population is predominantly “Anglo,” having only 18% Mexican-Americans less than 1% Negroes. The assessed property value per pupil exceeds $49,000, and the median family income is $8,001. In 1967-1968 the local tax rate of $.85 per $100 of valuation yielded $333 per pupil over and above its contribution to the Foundation Program. Coupled with the $225 provided from that Program, the district was able to supply $558 per student. Supplemented by a $36 per-pupil grant from federal sources, Alamo Heights spent $594 per pupil.

… And it was these disparities, largely attributable to differences in the amounts of money collected through local property taxation, that led the District Court to conclude that Texas’ dual system of public school financing violated the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court held that the Texas system discriminates on the basis of wealth in the manner in which education is provided for its people. 337 F. Supp. at 282. Finding that wealth is a “suspect” classification, and that education is a “fundamental” interest, the District Court held that the Texas system could be sustained only if the State could show that it was premised upon some compelling [st]ate interest …

Texas virtually concedes that its historically rooted dual system of financing education could not withstand the strict judicial scrutiny that this Court has found appropriate in reviewing legislative judgments that interfere with fundamental constitutional rights or that involve suspect classifications. If, as previous decisions have indicated, strict scrutiny means that the State’s system is not entitled to the usual presumption of validity, that the State rather than the complainants must carry a “heavy burden of justification,” that the State must demonstrate that its educational system has been structured with “precision,” and is “tailored” narrowly to serve legitimate objectives and that it has selected the “less drastic means” for effectuating its objectives, the Texas financing system and its counterpart in virtually every other State will not pass muster. The State candidly admits that “[n]o one familiar with the Texas system would contend that it has yet achieved perfection.” Apart from its concession that educational financing in Texas has “defects” and “imperfections,” the State defends the systems rationality with vigor and disputes the District Court’s finding that it lacks a “reasonable basis.” …

This, then, establishes the framework for our analysis. We must decide, first, whether the Texas system of financing public education operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny. If so, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed. If not, the Texas scheme must still be examined to determine whether it rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment …

The case comes to us with no definitive description of the classifying facts or delineation of the disfavored class. Examination of the District Court’s opinion and of appellees’ complaint, briefs, and contentions at oral argument suggests, however, at least three ways in which the discrimination claimed here might be described. The Texas system of school financing might be regarded as discriminating (1) against “poor” persons whose incomes fall below some identifiable level of poverty or who might be characterized as functionally “indigent,” or (2) against those who are relatively poorer than others,” or (3) against all those who, irrespective of their personal incomes, happen to reside in relatively poorer school districts. Our task must be to ascertain whether, in fact, the Texas system has been shown to discriminate on any of these possible bases and, if so, whether the resulting classification may be regarded as suspect.

The precedents of this Court provide the proper starting point. The individuals, or groups of individuals, who constituted the class discriminated against in our prior cases shared two distinguishing characteristics: because of their impecunity, they were completely unable to pay for some desired benefit, and, as a consequence, they sustained an absolute deprivation of a meaningful opportunity to enjoy that benefit …

Only appellees’ first possible basis for describing the class disadvantaged by the Texas school financing system — discrimination against a class of definably “poor” persons — might arguably meet the criteria established in these prior cases. Even a cursory examination, however, demonstrates that neither of the two distinguishing characteristics of wealth classifications can be found here. First, in support of their charge that the system discriminates against the “poor,” appellees have made no effort to demonstrate that it operates to the peculiar disadvantage of any class fairly definable as indigent, or as composed of persons whose incomes are beneath any designated poverty level …

Second, neither appellees nor the District Court addressed the fact that, unlike each of the foregoing cases, lack of personal resources has not occasioned an absolute deprivation of the desired benefit. The argument here is not that the children in districts having relatively low assessable property values are receiving no public education; rather, it is that they are receiving a poorer quality education than that available to children in districts having more assessable wealth. Apart from the unsettled and disputed question whether the quality of education may be determined by the amount of money expended for it, 6 a sufficient answer to appellees’ argument is that, at least where- wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute, equality or precisely equal advantages. Nor, indeed, in view of the infinite variables affecting the educational process, can any system assure equal, quality of education except in the most relative sense. Texas asserts that the Minimum Foundation Program provides an “adequate” education for all children in the State. By providing 12 years of free public school education, and by assuring teachers, books, transportation, and operating funds, the Texas Legislature has endeavored to “guarantee, for, the welfare of the state as a whole, that all people shall have at least an adequate program of education. This is what is meant by ‘A Minimum Foundation Program of Education.'” The State repeatedly asserted in its briefs in this Court that it has fulfilled this desire and that it now assures “every child in every school district an adequate education.” No proof was offered at trial persuasively discrediting or refuting the State’s assertion …

For these two reasons-the absence of any evidence that the financing system discriminates against any definable category of “poor” people or that it results in the absolute deprivation of education-the disadvantaged class is not susceptible of identification in traditional terms …

However described, it is clear that appellees’ suit asks this Court to extend its most exacting scrutiny to review a system that allegedly discriminates against a large, diverse, and amorphous class, unified only by the common factor of residence in districts that happen to have less taxable wealth than other districts. The system of alleged discrimination and the class it defines have none of the traditional indicia of suspectness: the class is not saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.

We thus conclude that the Texas system does not operate to the peculiar disadvantage of any suspect class …

But in recognition of the fact that this Court has never heretofore held that wealth discrimination alone provides an adequate basis for invoking strict scrutiny, appellees have not relied solely on this contention. They also assert that the State’s system impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a “fundamental” right, and that, accordingly, the prior decisions of this Court require the application of the strict standard of judicial review. Graham v. Richardson (1971) [other citations omitted].

This theme, expressing an abiding respect for the vital role of education in a free society, may be found in numerous opinions of Justices of this Court writing both before and after Brown was decided. Wisconsin v. Yoder (BURGER), (WHITE), (1972) [other citations omitted].

Nothing this Court holds today in any way detracts from our historic dedication to public education. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion of the three-judge panel below that “the grave significance of education both to the individual and to our society” cannot be doubted.” But the importance of a service performed by the State does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental for purposes of examination under the Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting from the Court’s application of strict scrutiny to a law impinging upon the right of interstate travel, admonished that … if the degree of judicial scrutiny of state legislation fluctuated, depending on a majority’s view of the importance of the interest affected, we would have gone “far toward making this Court a super-legislature.'” We would, indeed, then be assuming a legislative role, and one for which the Court lacks both authority and competence. But MR. JUSTICE STEWART s response in Shapiro to Mr. Justice Harlan’s concern correctly articulates the limits of the fundamental rights rationale employed in the Court’s equal protection decisions:

“The Court today does not ‘pick out particular human activities, characterize them as fundamental,’ and give them added protection. … To the contrary, the Court simply recognizes, as it must, an established constitutional right, and gives to that right no less protection than the Constitution itself demands.” (Emphasis in original.)

The lesson of these cases in addressing the question now before the Court is plain. It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws. Thus, the key to discovering whether education is “fundamental” is not to be found in comparisons of the relative societal significance of education, as opposed to subsistence or housing. Nor is it to be found by weighing whether education is as important as the right to travel. Rather, the answer lies in assessing whether there is a right to education explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution … Education, of course, is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution. Nor do we find any basis for saying it is implicitly so protected. As we have said, the undisputed importance of education will not, alone, cause this Court to depart from the usual standard for reviewing a State’s social and economic legislation …

Even if it were conceded that some identifiable quantum of education is a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of either right, we have no indication that the present levels of educational expenditures in Texas provide an education that falls short …

While it is no doubt true that reliance on local property taxation for school revenues provides less freedom of choice with respect to expenditures for some districts than for others the existence of ‘some inequality’ in the manner in which the State’s rationale is achieved is not alone a sufficient basis for striking down the entire system. McGowan v. Maryland (1961).

Every step leading to the establishment of the system Texas utilizes today — including the decisions permitting localities to tax and expend locally, and creating and continuously expanding state aid — was implemented in an effort to extend public education and to improve its quality. Of course, every reform that benefits some more than others may be criticized for what it fails to accomplish. But we think it plain that, in substance, the thrust of the Texas system is affirmative and reformatory, and, therefore, should be scrutinized under judicial principles sensitive to the nature of the State’s efforts and to the rights reserved to the States under the Constitution …

It should be clear, for the reasons stated above and in accord with the prior decisions of this Court, that this is not a case in which the challenged state action must be subjected to the searching judicial scrutiny reserved for laws that create suspect classifications or impinge upon constitutionally protected rights …

In sum, to the extent that the Texas system of school financing results in unequal expenditures between children who happen to reside in different districts, we cannot say that such disparities are the product of a system that is so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory …

… The consideration and initiation of fundamental reforms with respect to state taxation and education are matters reserved for the legislative processes of the various States, and we do no violence to the values of federalism and separation of powers by staying our hand. We hardly need add that this Court’s action today is not to be viewed as placing its judicial imprimatur on the status quo. The need is apparent for reform in. tax systems which may well have relied too long and too heavily on the local property tax. And certainly innovative thinking as to public education, its methods, and its funding is necessary to assure both a higher level of quality and greater uniformity of opportunity.

These matters merit the continued attention of the scholars who already have contributed much their challenges. But the ultimate solutions must come from the lawmakers and from the democratic pressures of those who elect them.

Reversed.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

Plyler v. Doe (1985)

457 U.S. 202 (1985)

Vote: 5-4
Decision: Affirmed
Majority: Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence: Marshall
Concurrence: Blackmun
Concurrence: Powell
Dissent: Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O’Connor

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens …

In May 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States. The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country [§ 21.031] …

This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The action complained of the exclusion of plaintiff children from the public schools of the Tyler Independent School District … After certifying a class consisting of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin residing within the School District, the District Court preliminarily enjoined defendants from denying a free education to members of the plaintiff class …

Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments … Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government …

A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose …

But we would not be faithful to our obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment if we applied so deferential a standard to every classification. The Equal Protection Clause was intended as a restriction on state legislative action inconsistent with elemental constitutional premises. Thus we have treated as presumptively invidious those classifications that disadvantage a “suspect class,” or that impinge upon the exercise of a “fundamental right.” With respect to such classifications, it is appropriate to enforce the mandate of equal protection by requiring the State to demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. In addition, we have recognized that certain forms of legislative classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless give rise to recurring constitutional difficulties; in these limited circumstances we have sought the assurance that the classification reflects a reasoned judgment consistent with the ideal of equal protection by inquiring whether it may fairly be viewed as furthering a substantial interest of the State. We turn to a consideration of the standard appropriate for the evaluation of § 21.031 …

The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their “parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms,” and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State’s jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases “can affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status.” … Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice …

In addition to the pivotal role of education in sustaining our political and cultural heritage, denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit. Paradoxically, by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority. But more directly, “education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.” Wisconsin v. Yoder. Illiteracy is an enduring disability. The inability to read and write will handicap the individual deprived of a basic education each and every day of his life. The inestimable toll of that deprivation on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and the obstacle it poses to individual achievement, make it most difficult to reconcile the cost or the principle of a status-based denial of basic education with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause …

These well-settled principles allow us to determine the proper level of deference to be afforded § 21.031. Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class, because their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a “constitutional irrelevancy.” Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population. San Antonio Independent School Dist. V. Rodriguez. But more is involved in these cases than the abstract question whether § 21.031 discriminates against a suspect class, or whether education is a fundamental right. More is involved in these cases than the abstract question whether § 21.031 discriminates against a suspect class, or whether education is a fundamental right. Section 21.031 imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives. By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation. In determining the rationality of § 21.031, we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children who are its victims. In light of these countervailing costs, the discrimination contained in § 21.031 can hardly be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State …

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is

Affirmed.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

Clark v. Jeter (1988)

486 U.S. 456 (1988)

Vote: 9-0
Decision: Reversed
Majority: O’Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia and Kennedy

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under Pennsylvania law, an illegitimate child must prove paternity before seeking support from his or her father, and a suit to establish paternity ordinarily must be brought within six years of an illegitimate child’s birth. By contrast, a legitimate child may seek support from his or her parents at any time. We granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of this legislative scheme …

On September 22, 1983, petitioner Cherlyn Clark filed a support complaint in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of her minor daughter, Tiffany, who was born out of wedlock on June 11, 1973. Clark named respondent Gene Jeter as Tiffany’s father. The court ordered blood tests, which showed a 99.3% probability that Jeter is Tiffany’s father.

Jeter moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations for paternity actions. In her response, Clark contended that this statute is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the alternative, she argued that the statute was tolled by fraudulent and misleading actions of the welfare department, or by threats and assaults by Jeter.

The trial court upheld the statute of limitations … Therefore, the trial court entered judgment for Jeter … Clark appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, again raising her constitutional challenges to the 6-year statute of limitations … Before the court decided her case, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted an 18-year statute of limitations for actions to establish paternity … The Superior Court concluded, however, that Pennsylvania’s new 18-year statute of limitations did not apply retroactively, and that it would not revive Clark’s cause of action in any event … The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied her petition for allowance of appeal. We granted Clark’s petition for certiorari.

…

In considering whether state legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.Const., Amdt. 14, § 1, we apply different levels of scrutiny to different types of classifications. At a minimum, a statutory classification must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. San Antonio Independent School Dist. V. Rodriguez (1973) [other citations omitted]. Classifications based on race or national origin, Loving v. Virginia (1967), and classifications affecting fundamental rights, Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections (1966), are given the most exacting scrutiny. Between these extremes of rational basis review and strict scrutiny lies a level of intermediate scrutiny, which generally has been applied to discriminatory classifications based on sex or illegitimacy. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) [other citations omitted].

To withstand intermediate scrutiny, a statutory classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective. Consequently we have invalidated classifications that burden illegitimate children for the sake of punishing the illicit relations of their parents, because “visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust.” Weber v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., (1972). Yet, in the seminal case concerning the child’s right to support, this Court acknowledged that it might be appropriate to treat illegitimate children differently in the support context because of “lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity.” Gomez v. Perez (1973). This Court has developed a particular framework for evaluating equal protection challenges to statutes of limitations that apply to suits to establish paternity, and thereby limit the ability of illegitimate children to obtain support.

“First, the period for obtaining support … must be sufficiently long in duration to present a reasonable opportunity for those with an interest in such children to assert claims on their behalf. Second, any time limitation placed on that opportunity must be substantially related to the State’s interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims.” Mills v. Habluetzel.

In Mills, we held that Texas’ 1-year statute of limitations failed both steps of the analysis. We explained that paternity suits typically will be brought by the child’s mother, who might not act swiftly amidst the emotional and financial complications of the child’s first year … the Court unanimously struck down Tennessee’s 2-year statute of limitations for paternity and child support actions brought on behalf of certain illegitimate children … the Court first considered whether two years afforded a reasonable opportunity to bring such suits. The Tennessee statute was relatively more generous than the Texas statute … because it did not limit actions against a father who had acknowledged his paternity in writing or by furnishing support; nor did it apply if the child was likely to become a public charge. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the 2-year period was too short in light of the persisting financial and emotional problems that are likely to afflict the child’s mother. Proceeding to the second step of the analysis, the Court decided that the 2-year statute of limitations was not substantially related to Tennessee’s asserted interest in preventing stale and fraudulent claims … this incremental difference would not create substantially greater proof and fraud problems …

In light of this authority, we conclude that Pennsylvania’s 6-year statute of limitations violates the Equal Protection Clause. Even six years does not necessarily provide a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim on behalf of an illegitimate child. “The unwillingness of the ‘mother to file a paternity action on behalf of her child, which could stem from her relationship with the natural father or … from the emotional strain of having an illegitimate child, or even from the desire to avoid community and family disapproval, may continue years after the child is born. The problem may be exacerbated if, as often happens, the mother herself is a minor.” Mills v. Habluetzel (O’CONNOR concurring). Not all of these difficulties are likely to abate in six years. A mother might realize only belatedly “a loss of income attributable to the need to care for the child,” … Furthermore, financial difficulties are likely to increase as the child matures and incurs expenses for clothing, school, and medical care. Moore v. McNamara (1984). Thus it is questionable whether a State acts reasonably when it requires most paternity and support actions to be brought within six years of an illegitimate child’s birth.

We do not rest our decision on this ground, however, for it is not entirely evident that six years would necessarily be an unreasonable limitations period for child support actions involving illegitimate children. We are, however, confident that the 6-year statute of limitations is not substantially related to Pennsylvania’s interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. Mills v. Habluetzel [other citations omitted].

The legislative history of the federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments explains why Congress thought such statutes of limitations are reasonable. Congress adverted to the problem of stale and fraudulent claims, but recognized that increasingly sophisticated tests for genetic markers permit the exclusion of over 99% of those who might be accused of paternity, regardless of the age of the child … This scientific evidence is available throughout the child’s minority, and it is an additional reason to doubt that Pennsylvania had a substantial reason for limiting the time within which paternity and support actions could be brought.

We conclude that the Pennsylvania statute does not withstand heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We therefore find it unnecessary to reach Clark’s due process claim. The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976)

427 U.S. 307 (1976)

Vote: Per curiam
Decision: Reversed
Dissent: Marshall

Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the question whether the provision of Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 32, § 26 (3) (a) (1966), that a uniformed state police officer “shall be retired … upon his attaining age fifty,” denies appellee police officer equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment …

Appellee Robert Murgia was an officer in the Uniformed Branch of the Massachusetts State Police. The Massachusetts Board of Retirement retired him upon his 50th birthday. Appellee brought this civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that the operation of § 26 (3) (a) denied him equal protection of the … The District Judge dismissed appellee’s complaint on the ground that the complaint did not allege a substantial constitutional question … On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in an unreported memorandum, set aside the District Court judgment and remanded the case with direction to convene a three-judge court. Upon a record consisting of depositions, affidavits, and other documentary material submitted by the parties, the three-judge court filed an opinion that declared § 26 (3) (a) unconstitutional on the ground that “a classification based on age 50 alone lacks a rational basis in furthering any substantial state interest,” and enjoined enforcement of the statute …

We need state only briefly our reasons for agreeing that strict scrutiny is not the proper test for determining whether the mandatory retirement provision denies appellee equal protection. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973) reaffirmed that equal protection analysis requires strict scrutiny of a legislative classification only when the classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right’ or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class.’ Mandatory retirement at age 50 under the Massachusetts statute involves neither situation …

This Court’s decisions give no support to the proposition that a right of governmental employment per se is fundamental … Accordingly, we have expressly stated that a standard less than strict scrutiny “has consistently been applied to state legislation restricting the availability of employment opportunities.”

Nor does the class of uniformed state police officers over 50 constitute a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis … While the treatment of the aged in this Nation has not been wholly free of discrimination, such persons, unlike, say, those who have been discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin, have not experienced a “history of purposeful unequal treatment” or been subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities. The class subject to the compulsory retirement feature of the Massachusetts statute consists of uniformed state police officers over the age of 50. It cannot be said to discriminate only against the elderly. Rather, it draws the line at a certain age in middle life. But even old age does not define a “discrete and insular” group, United States v. Carolene Products Co., (1938), in need of “extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.” …

We turn then to examine this state classification under the rational-basis standard. This inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary.

In this case, the Massachusetts statute clearly meets the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, for the State’s classification rationally furthers the purpose identified by the State: Through mandatory retirement at age 50, the legislature seeks to protect the public by assuring physical preparedness of its uniformed police. Since physical ability generally declines with age, mandatory retirement at 50 serves to remove from police service those whose fitness for uniformed work presumptively has diminished with age. This clearly is rationally related to the State’s objective that § 26 (3) (a) has the effect of excluding from service so few officers who are in fact unqualified as to render age 50 a criterion wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute …

We do not make light of the substantial economic and psychological effects premature and compulsory retirement can have on an individual; nor do we denigrate the ability of elderly citizens to continue to contribute to society. The problems of retirement have been well documented and are beyond serious dispute. But “[w]e do not decide today that the [Massachusetts statute] is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that [Massachusetts] might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised.” … We decide only that the system enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature does not deny appellee equal protection of the laws.

The judgment is reversed.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985)

473 U.S. 432 (1985)

Vote: 6-3
Decision: Affirmed in part, Reversed in part
Majority: White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor
Concurrence: Stevens, joined by Burger
Dissent/ Concurrence: Marshall, joined by Brennan and Blackmun

JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

A Texas city denied a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance requiring permits for such homes. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that mental retardation is a “quasi-suspect” classification, and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not substantially further an important governmental purpose. We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate, but conclude that, under that standard, the ordinance is invalid as applied in this case.

In July 1980, respondent Jan Hannah purchased a building at 201 Featherston Street in the city of Cleburne, Texas, with the intention of leasing it to Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (CLC), for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded. It was anticipated that the home would house 13 retarded men and women, who would be under the constant supervision of CLC staff members. The house had four bedrooms and two baths, with a half bath to be added. CLC planned to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations.

The city informed CLC that a special use permit would be required for the operation of a group home at the site, and CLC accordingly submitted a permit application. In response to a subsequent inquiry from CLC, the city explained that under the zoning regulations applicable to the site, a special use permit, renewable annually, was required for the construction of “[h]ospitals for the insane or feeble-minded, or alcoholic [sic] or drug addicts, or penal or correctional institutions.” The city determined that the proposed group home should be classified as a “hospital for the feebleminded.” After holding a public hearing on CLC’s application, the City Council voted 3 to 1 to deny a special use permit.

CLC then filed suit in Federal District Court against the city and a number of its officials, alleging, inter alia, that the zoning ordinance was invalid on its face and as applied because it discriminated against the mentally retarded in violation of the equal protection rights of CLC and its potential residents. The District Court found that “[i]f the potential residents of the Featherston Street home were not mentally retarded, but the home was the same in all other respects, its use would be permitted under the city’s zoning ordinance,” and that the City Council’s decision “was motivated primarily by the fact that the residents of the home would be persons who are mentally retarded.” …

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Plyler v. Doe (1982). Section 5 of the Amendment empowers Congress to enforce this mandate, but absent controlling congressional direction, the courts have themselves devised standards for determining the validity of state legislation or other official action that is challenged as denying equal protection. The general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Schweiker v. Wilson (1981) [other citations omitted].

The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, alienage, or national origin. These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy-a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest. McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) [other citations omitted].

Against this background, we conclude for several reasons that the Court of Appeals erred in holding mental retardation a quasi-suspect classification calling for a more exacting standard of judicial review than is normally accorded economic and social legislation. First, it is undeniable, and it is not argued otherwise here, that those who are mentally retarded have a reduced ability to cope with and function in the everyday world. Nor are they all cut from the same pattern: as the testimony in this record indicates, they range from those whose disability is not immediately evident to those who must be constantly cared for. They are thus different, immutably so, in relevant respects, and the States’ interest in dealing with and providing for them is plainly a legitimate one. How this large and diversified group is to be treated under the law is a difficult and often a technical matter, very much a task for legislators guided by qualified professionals, and not by the perhaps ill-informed opinions of the judiciary. Heightened scrutiny inevitably involves substantive judgments about legislative decisions, and we doubt that the predicate for such judicial oversight is present where the classification deals with mental retardation.

Second, the distinctive legislative response, both national and state, to the plight of those who are mentally retarded demonstrates not only that they have unique problems, but also that the lawmakers have been addressing their difficulties in a manner that belies a continuing antipathy or prejudice and a corresponding need for more intrusive oversight by the judiciary …

Such legislation thus singling out the retarded for special treatment reflects the real and undeniable differences between the retarded and others … The relevant inquiry, however, is whether heightened scrutiny is constitutionally mandated in the first instance. Even assuming that many of these laws could be shown to be substantially related to an important governmental purpose, merely requiring the legislature to justify its efforts in these terms may lead it to refrain from acting at all. Much recent legislation intended to benefit the retarded also assumes the need for measures that might be perceived to disadvantage them …

Third, the legislative response, which could hardly have occurred and survived without public support, negates any claim that the mentally retarded are politically powerless in the sense that they have no ability to attract the attention of the lawmakers. Any minority can be said to be powerless to assert direct control over the legislature, but if that were a criterion for higher level scrutiny by the courts, much economic and social legislation would now be suspect.

Fourth, if the large and amorphous class of the mentally retarded were deemed quasi-suspect for the reasons given by the Court of Appeals, it would be difficult to find a principled way to distinguish a variety of other groups who have perhaps immutable disabilities setting them off from others, who cannot themselves mandate the desired legislative responses, and who can claim some degree of prejudice from at least part of the public at large … We are reluctant to set out on that course, and we decline to do so …

Our refusal to recognize the retarded as a quasi-suspect class does not leave them entirely unprotected from invidious discrimination. To withstand equal protection review, legislation that distinguishes between the mentally retarded and others must be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. This standard, we believe, affords government the latitude necessary both to pursue policies designed to assist the retarded in realizing their full potential, and to freely and efficiently engage in activities that burden the retarded in what is essentially an incidental manner. The State may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational. Zobel v. Williams (1982) [other citations omitted].

In the courts below the city also urged that the ordinance is aimed at avoiding concentration of population and at lessening congestion of the streets. These concerns obviously fail to explain why apartment houses, fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals and the like, may freely locate in the area without a permit. So, too, the expressed worry about fire hazards, the serenity of the neighborhood, and the avoidance of danger to other residents fail rationally to justify singling out a home such as 201 Featherston for the special use permit, yet imposing no such restrictions on the many other uses freely permitted in the neighborhood …

The short of it is that requiring the permit in this case appears to us to rest on an irrational prejudice against the mentally retarded, including those who would occupy the Featherston facility and who would live under the closely supervised and highly regulated conditions expressly provided for by state and federal law.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed insofar as it invalidates the zoning ordinance as applied to the Featherston home. The judgment is otherwise vacated, and the case is remanded.

It is so ordered.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

Romer v. Evans (1996)

517 U.S. 620 (1996)

Vote: 6-3
Decision: Affirmed
Majority: Kennedy, joined by Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent: Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (dissenting opinion). Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law’s neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake. The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado’s Constitution.

The enactment challenged in this case is an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado, adopted in a 1992 statewide referendum. The parties and the state courts refer to it as “Amendment 2,” its designation when submitted to the voters. The impetus for the amendment and the contentious campaign that preceded its adoption came in large part from ordinances that had been passed in various Colorado municipalities. For example, the cities of Aspen and Boulder and the city and County of Denver each had enacted ordinances which banned discrimination in many transactions and activities, including housing, employment, education, public accommodations, and health and welfare services … What gave rise to the statewide controversy was the protection the ordinances afforded to persons discriminated against by reason of their sexual orientation … Amendment 2 repeals these ordinances to the extent they prohibit discrimination on the basis of “homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” Colo. Const., Art. II, § 30b.

Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians. The amendment reads:

“No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.” Ibid.

Soon after Amendment 2 was adopted, this litigation to declare its invalidity and enjoin its enforcement was commenced in the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Among the plaintiffs (respondents here) were homosexual persons, some of them government employees. They alleged that enforcement of Amendment 2 would subject them to immediate and substantial risk of discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. Other plaintiffs (also respondents here) included the three municipalities whose ordinances we have cited and certain other governmental entities which had acted earlier to protect homosexuals from discrimination but would be prevented by Amendment 2 from continuing to do so …

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public-accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment …

If this consequence follows from Amendment 2, as its broad language suggests, it would compound the constitutional difficulties the law creates. The state court did not decide whether the amendment has this effect, however, and neither need we. In the course of rejecting the argument that Amendment 2 is intended to conserve resources to fight discrimination against suspect classes, the Colorado Supreme Court made the limited observation that the amendment is not intended to affect many antidiscrimination laws protecting non suspect classes … In our view that does not resolve the issue. In any event, even if, as we doubt, homosexuals could find some safe harbor in laws of general application, we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. They can obtain specific protection against discrimination only by enlisting the citizenry of Colorado to amend the State Constitution or perhaps, on the State’s view, by trying to pass helpful laws of general applicability. This is so no matter how local or discrete the harm, no matter how public and widespread the injury. We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society …

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests …

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. “‘Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Sweatt v. Painter (1950), (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)).

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Excerpted by Kimberly Clairmont

United States v. Skrmetti (2025)

606 U.S. ___ (2025)

Vote: 6-3
Decision: Affirmed
Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Alito joined parts I and II-B.
Concurrence: Thomas
Concurrence: Barrett, joined by Thomas
Concurrence: Alito
Dissent: Justice Sotomayor, joined by Jackson and Kagan as to parts I-IV.
Dissent: Kagan

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider whether a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex…. Some transgender individuals suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by persistent, clinically significant distress resulting from an incongruence between gender identity and biological sex. Left untreated, gender dysphoria may result in severe physical and psychological harms.

In 1979, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) … published one of the first sets of clinical guidelines for treating gender dysphoria with sex transition treatments…. In 1998, WPATH revised its standards of care …  the standards discuss a range of factors regarding the provision of such treatments to minors…. The current standards recognize known risks associated with the provision of sex transition treatments to adolescents…. They further state that there is “limited data on the optimal timing” of sex transition treatments or “the long-term physical, psychological, and neurodevelopmental outcomes in youth,”… and note that “[o]ur understanding of gender identity development in adolescence is continuing to evolve,”.…

In recent years, the number of minors requesting sex transition treatments has increased… This increase has corresponded with rising debates regarding the relative risks and benefits of such treatments….

Meanwhile, health authorities in a number of European countries have raised significant concerns regarding the potential harms associated with using puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors….

In March 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity…. While the State’s legislature acknowledged that discordance between a minor’s gender identity and biological sex can cause “discomfort or distress,” it identified concerns regarding the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria in minors…. [T]he legislature determined that there is evidence that gender dysphoria “can be resolved by less invasive approaches that are likely to result in better outcomes.”

Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor (plaintiffs) brought a pre-enforcement challenge to SB1 … the plaintiffs asserted that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They moved for a preliminary injunction…. The United States intervened under 42 U. S. C. §2000h–2, which authorizes the Federal Government to intervene in a private equal protection suit “if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.”

The District Court partially enjoined enforcement of SB1’s prohibitions…. [T]he court held, as relevant, that the United States and plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection challenge to the law’s prohibitions on puberty blockers and hormones. The court found that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, and that SB1 was unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny…. [T]he District Court issued a statewide injunction enjoining enforcement of all provisions of SB1 except for the private right of action and the law’s ban on sex transition surgery. Tennessee appealed…

The Sixth Circuit reversed. As relevant, the Sixth Circuit held that the United States and plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claim. The court first found that SB1 does not classify on the basis of sex… The court next declined to recognize transgender individuals as a suspect class, finding that transgender individuals are neither politically powerless nor a discrete group defined by obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics. Finally, the court concluded that the United States and plaintiffs had failed to establish that animus toward transgender individuals as a class was the operative force behind SB1.

We granted certiorari to decide whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s command that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” … “must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons,” Romer v. Evans, (1996). We have reconciled the principle of equal protection with the reality of legislative classification by holding that, “if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.” [Romer]. We generally afford such laws “wide latitude” under this rational basis review, acknowledging that “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., (1985).

Certain legislative classifications, however, prompt heightened review … laws that classify on the basis of race, alienage, or national origin trigger strict scrutiny and will pass constitutional muster “only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” [Cleburne]…. We have similarly held that sex-based classifications warrant heightened scrutiny…  [W]e have explained that sex “generally provides no sensible ground for differential treatment,” Cleburne … We accordingly subject laws containing sex-based classifications to intermediate scrutiny, under which the State must show that the “classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” [U.S. v] Virginia, [1996].

We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.

On its face, SB1 incorporates two classifications. First, SB1 classifies on the basis of age. Healthcare providers may administer certain medical treatments to individuals ages 18 and older but not to minors. Second, SB1 classifies on the basis of medical use. Healthcare providers may administer puberty blockers or hormones to minors to treat certain conditions but not to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence. Classifications that turn on age or medical use are subject to only rational basis review…

The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. We disagree.

Neither of the above classifications turns on sex. Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex….

The plaintiffs resist this conclusion, arguing that SB1 creates facial sex-based classifications by defining the prohibited medical care based on the patient’s sex. This argument takes two forms. At times, the plaintiffs suggest that SB1 classifies on the basis of sex because its prohibitions reference sex. Alternatively, the plaintiffs contend that SB1 works a sex-based classification because application of the law turns on sex. Neither argument is persuasive.

This Court has never suggested that mere reference to sex is sufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny…. Such an approach, moreover, would be especially inappropriate in the medical context. Some medical treatments and procedures are uniquely bound up in sex…. In the medical context, the mere use of sex-based language does not sweep a statute within the reach of heightened scrutiny.

We also reject the argument that the application of SB1 turns on sex. The plaintiffs and the dissent contend that an adolescent whose biological sex is female cannot receive puberty blockers or testosterone to live and present as a male, but an adolescent whose biological sex is male can, while an adolescent whose biological sex is male cannot receive puberty blockers or estrogen to live and present as a female, but an adolescent whose biological sex is female can. So conceived, they argue, SB1 prohibits certain treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex.

The plaintiffs and the dissent, however, contort the meaning of the term “medical treatment.” Notably absent from their framing is a key aspect of any medical treatment: the underlying medical concern the treatment is intended to address….

When properly understood from the perspective of the indications that puberty blockers and hormones treat, SB1 clearly does not classify on the basis of sex. Both puberty blockers and hormones can be used to treat certain overlapping indications (such as gender dysphoria), and each can be used to treat a range of other conditions. These combinations of drugs and indications give rise to various medical treatments. When, for example, a transgender boy (whose biological sex is female) takes puberty blockers to treat his gender incongruence, he receives a different medical treatment than a boy whose biological sex is male who takes puberty blockers to treat his precocious puberty. SB1, in turn, restricts which of these medical treatments are available to minors: Under SB1, a healthcare provider may administer puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat a congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury; a healthcare provider may not administer puberty blockers or hormones to any minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence. The application of that prohibition does not turn on sex.

….

Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes.

….

The plaintiffs separately argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it discriminates against transgender individuals, who the plaintiffs assert constitute a quasi-suspect class. This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status. As we have explained, SB1 includes only two classifications: healthcare providers may not administer puberty blockers or hormones to minors (a classification based on age) to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence (a classification based on medical use). The plaintiffs do not argue that the first classification turns on transgender status, and our case law forecloses any such argument as to the second.

We have explained that a State does not trigger heightened constitutional scrutiny by regulating a medical procedure that only one sex can undergo unless the regulation is a mere pretext for invidious sex discrimination. In Geduldig v. Aiello,  (1974), for example, we held that a California insurance program that excluded from coverage certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy did not discriminate on the basis of sex. In reaching that holding, we explained that the program did not exclude any individual from benefit eligibility because of the individual’s sex but rather “remove[d] one physical condition—pregnancy—from the list of compensable disabilities.”  We observed that the “lack of identity” between sex and the excluded pregnancy-related disabilities became “clear upon the most cursory analysis.”  The California insurance program, we explained, divided potential recipients into two groups: “pregnant women and nonpregnant persons.”  Because women fell into both groups, the program did not discriminate against women as a class. We thus concluded that, even though only biological women can become pregnant, not every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification.  As such, “[a]bsent a showing that distinctions involving pregnancy are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against the members of one sex or the other, lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation . . . on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.”

By the same token, SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses—gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—from the range of treatable conditions. SB1 divides minors into two groups: those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat the excluded diagnoses, and those who might seek puberty blockers or hormones to treat other conditions. Because only transgender individuals seek puberty blockers and hormones for the excluded diagnoses, the first group includes only transgender individuals; the second group, in contrast, encompasses both transgender and nontransgender individuals. Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence—just as only biological women can become pregnant—there is a “lack of identity” between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnoses. The plaintiffs, moreover, have not argued that SB1’s prohibitions are mere pretexts designed to effect an invidious discrimination against transgender individuals. Under these circumstances, we decline to find that SB1’s prohibitions on the use of puberty blockers and hormones exclude any individuals on the basis of transgender status.

Finally, Bostock v. Clayton County, (2020), does not alter our analysis. In Bostock, we held that an employer who fires an employee for being gay or transgender violates Title VII’s prohibition on discharging an individual “because of ” their sex. We reasoned that Title VII’s “because of ” test incorporates the traditional but-for causation standard, which “directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause. Applying that test, we held that, “[f]or an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.”  In such a case, the employer has penalized a member of one sex for a trait or action that it tolerates in members of the other.

The plaintiffs urge us to apply Bostock’s reasoning to this case. In their view, SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits a minor whose biological sex is female from receiving testosterone to live as a male but allows a minor whose biological sex is male to receive testosterone for the same purposes (and vice versa). Applying Bostock’s reasoning, they argue that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex because it intentionally penalizes members of one sex for traits and actions that it tolerates in another.

We have not yet considered whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here.

The rational basis inquiry “employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one.” Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement, [1976]. Under this standard, we will uphold a statutory classification so long as there is “any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., (1993). Where there exist “plausible reasons” for the relevant government action, “our inquiry is at an end.”

SB1 clearly meets this standard. Tennessee determined that administering puberty blockers or hormones to a minor to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences.” It further found that it was “likely that not all harmful effects associated with these types of medical procedures when performed on a minor are yet fully known, as many of these procedures, when performed on a minor for such purposes, are experimental in nature and not supported by high- quality, long-term medical studies.”  Tennessee determined that “minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures and that many individuals have expressed regret for medical procedures that were performed on or administered to them for such purposes when they were minors.” At the same time, Tennessee noted evidence that discordance between sex and gender “can be resolved by less invasive approaches that are likely to result in better outcomes for the minor.” SB1’s age- and diagnosis-based classifications are plainly rationally related to these findings and the State’s objective of protecting minors’ health and welfare.

….

Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area. After Tennessee enacted SB1, a report commissioned by England’s National Health Service (NHS England) characterized the evidence concerning the use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat transgender minors as “remarkably weak,” concluding that there is “no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.”….

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not “to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic” of the law before us, Beach Communications, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Jackson joins, and with whom Justice Kagan joins as to all but Part V, dissenting.

To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex. If a State seeks to differentiate on that basis, it must show that the sex classification “serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” [US v. VA, (1996)] Such review (known as intermediate scrutiny) allows courts to ascertain whether the State has a sound, evidence-based reason to distinguish on the basis of sex or whether it does so in reliance on impermissible stereotypes about the sexes.

Today, the Court considers a Tennessee law that categorically prohibits doctors from prescribing certain medications to adolescents if (and only if) they will help a patient “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

In addition to discriminating against transgender adolescents, who by definition “identify with” an identity “inconsistent” with their sex, that law conditions the availability of medications on a patient’s sex. Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls.

Tennessee’s law expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status, so the Constitution and settled precedent require the Court to subject it to intermediate scrutiny. The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as “ ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’ ” might justify it.  Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.

….

Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child. The stories of the plaintiffs in this case reflect the stakes of that harsh reality.

….

Faced with the choice between leaving Tennessee in search of treatment and risking their children’s lives, Ryan, John, L. W., and their parents sued to enjoin SB1. The United States intervened in support. Together, they argued that SB1 unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status.

The level of constitutional scrutiny courts apply in reviewing state action is enormously consequential. Where a state law neither “proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights,” reviewing courts generally uphold a challenged law under the Equal Protection Clause so long as “any reasonably conceivable state of facts . . . could provide a rational basis for the classification.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.,  (1993). That lenient standard, which the majority erroneously applies today, demands hardly more than a cursory glance at the State’s reasons for legislating.

…. [M]inorities often face systemic barriers to vindicating their interests through the political process, courts have a comparative advantage over the elected branches in safeguarding their rights…. For nearly half a century, the Court has applied … intermediate scrutiny, to all “statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females.” Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, (2003) … States can differentiate on the basis of sex only to “ ‘serv[e] important governmental objectives’ ” and only if the sex classification is “ ‘substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.’ ” Hibbs. The standard is an intermediate one because it strikes an important balance. On the one hand, there are some genuine “[p]hysical differences between men and women,” so not all sex-based legislation is discriminatory or constitutionally proscribed. Virginia…. Intermediate scrutiny is the core judicial tool to differentiate innocuous sex-based laws from discriminatory ones.

SB1 plainly classifies on the basis of sex, so the Constitution demands intermediate scrutiny. Recall that SB1 prohibits the prescription of hormone therapy and puberty blockers only if done to “enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to alleviate “discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” Use of the same drugs to treat any other “ ‘disease’ ” is unaffected…

What does that mean in practice? Simply that sex determines access to the covered medication. Physicians in Tennessee can prescribe hormones and puberty blockers to help a male child, but not a female child, look more like a boy; and to help a female child, but not a male child, look more like a girl. Put in the statute’s own terms, doctors can facilitate consistency between an adolescent’s physical appearance and the “normal development” of her sex identified at birth, but they may not use the same medications to facilitate “inconsisten[cy]” with sex….

Like any other statute that turns on inconsistency with a protected characteristic, SB1 plainly classifies on the basis of sex. A simple analogy illustrates the point. Suppose Tennessee prohibited minors from attending “ ‘any services, rituals, or assemblies if done for the purpose of allowing the minor to identify with a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s religion.’ ” Brief for Yale Philosophers as Amici Curiae 10. No one would seriously dispute that such a rule classifies on the basis of religion. Whether the law prohibits a minor from attending any particular religious service turns on the minor’s religion: A Jewish child can visit a synagogue but not a church, while a Christian child can attend church but not the synagogue.

SB1 operates in the same way. Consider the mother who contacts a Tennessee doctor, concerned that her adolescent child has begun growing unwanted facial hair. This hair growth, the mother reports, has spurred significant distress because it makes her child look unduly masculine. The doctor’s next step depends on the adolescent’s sex. If the patient was identified as female at birth, SB1 allows the physician to alleviate her distress with testosterone suppressants… What if the adolescent was identified male at birth, however? SB1 precludes the patient from receiving the same medicine … SB1 “provides that different treatment be accorded to [persons] on the basis of their sex,” and therefore necessarily “establishes a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.” Reed v. Reed,  (1971)….

Tennessee, too, essentially concedes the point. It admits that a prohibition on wearing clothing “ ‘inconsistent with’ ” the wearer’s sex would trigger intermediate scrutiny, as would a law prohibiting professionals from working in jobs “ ‘inconsistent with’ ” their sex. Brief for Respondents… That is because for some jobs and some outfits, “a male can have the job” or wear the outfit, “and a female cannot.”…. SB1 draws exactly the same kind of sex-based line: For some treatments that help adolescents look and feel more masculine, a male minor can have the treatment, and a female minor cannot.

….

This Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, (2020), confirms the classification on SB1’s face. As Bostock explained in the context of Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

How does the majority wriggle itself (and the Sixth Circuit) free of any obligation to take a closer look? It abstracts away the sex classification on SB1’s face, asserting that the law classifies based only on “age” and “medical purpose.”….

The problem with the majority’s argument is that the very “medical purpose” SB1 prohibits is defined by reference to the patient’s sex….

For truly sex-neutral laws, it is impossible to imagine a single scenario where changing a patient’s sex yields a different result. To borrow from the majority’s catalog of apparently benign medical-use distinctions, imagine Tennessee allowed consumption of DayQuil to ease coughs, but not minor aches and pains. The regulated medical purposes (treatment of coughs, aches, and pains) are unrelated to sex, so a patient’s sex will never determine whether she can consume DayQuil. All that matters is whether the patient has a cough. That the majority finds a way to recast SB1 in sex- neutral terms is no evidence that SB1 is sex neutral in the way hypothetical prohibitions on DayQuil … would be….

Having blithely dispensed with the notion that SB1 classifies on the basis of sex, the majority next asserts that “SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”  That too is contrary to the statute’s text and plainly wrong.

SB1 prohibits Tennessee physicians from offering hormones and puberty blockers to allow a minor to “identify with” a gender identity inconsistent with her sex….

Left with nowhere else to turn, the Court hinges its conclusion to the contrary on the by-now infamous footnote 20 of Geduldig v. Aiello,  (1974), which declared that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the basis of sex. The footnote reasoned that, although “only women can become pregnant,” “[n]ormal pregnancy is an objectively identifiable physical condition with unique characteristics” and “lawmakers are constitutionally free to include or exclude pregnancy from the coverage of legislation … on any reasonable basis, just as with respect to any other physical condition.”  The takeaway, according to the majority, is that “not … every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based classification,” and so (apparently) not every legislative classification concerning “gender incongruence” (at least in the context of medical treatments) classifies on the basis of transgender status.

Geduldig was “egregiously wrong” when it was decided, both “[b]ecause pregnancy discrimination is inevitably sex discrimination” and because discrimination against women is so “tightly interwoven with society’s beliefs about pregnancy and motherhood.” Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., (2012) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). That the majority must resuscitate so unpersuasive a source, widely rejected as indefensible even 40 years ago, is itself a telling sign of the weakness of its position….

In any event, even Geduldig’s faulty reasoning cannot save the majority’s conclusion that SB1 is innocent of transgender discrimination. Unlike pregnancy, a desire to “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with [one’s] sex,”… is not some “objectively identifiable physical condition” that legislatures can target without reference to sex or transgender status, Geduldig. And while not all women are pregnant, all transgender people, by definition, “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with [their] sex,”… So, unlike the classes of pregnant persons and women, the class of minors potentially affected by SB1 and transgender minors are one and the same.

That SB1 discriminates on the basis of transgender status is yet another reason it must be subject to heightened scrutiny….

Transgender people have long been subject to discrimination in healthcare, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence…. Individuals whose gender identity diverges from their sex identified at birth (whether labeled as “transgender” at the time or not), moreover, have been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws….

Transgender persons, moreover, have a defining characteristic (incongruence between sex and gender identity) that plainly “ ‘bears no relation to [the individual’s] ability to perform or contribute to society.’ ” Cleburne….

SB1’s classifications by sex and transgender status clearly require the application of intermediate scrutiny. The majority’s choice instead to subject SB1 to rational-basis review, the most cursory form of constitutional review, is not only indefensible as a matter of precedent but also extraordinarily consequential. Instead of scrutinizing the legislature’s classifications with an eye towards ferreting out unconstitutional discrimination, the majority declares it will uphold Tennessee’s ban as long as there is “ ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’ ” [Cleburne] emphasis added). That marks the first time in 50 years that this Court has applied such deferential review, normally employed to assess run-of-the-mill economic regulations, to legislation that explicitly differentiates on the basis of sex. As a result, the Court never even asks whether Tennessee’s sex-based classification imposes the sort of invidious discrimination that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits….

Indeed, judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the State’s views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act. Women, it was once thought, were not suited to attend military schools with men. Virginia. Men and women, others said, should not marry those of a different race. Loving.. Those laws, too, posed politically fraught and contested questions about race, sex, and biology….

Yet the task of ascertaining SB1’s constitutionality is a familiar one. Tennessee has proffered an undoubtedly important interest in “protect[ing] the health and welfare of minors” by prohibiting medical procedures that carry “risks and harms.”…. It may well be, too, that “[d]eference to legislatures” is “particularly critical” in this context, where the provision of medical care to minors is at issue. (opinion of Thomas, J.). But that does not change the Court’s obligation, as mandated by our precedents, to determine whether the challenged sex classification in SB1’s categorical ban is tailored to protecting minors’ health and welfare, or instead rests on unlawful stereotypes about how boys and girls should look and act….

The present record offers reason to question (as the District Court did) whether Tennessee’s categorical ban on treating gender dysphoria bears the “requisite direct, substantial relationship” to its interest in protecting minors’ health. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, (1982). Tennessee has offered little evidence, for example, that it is more dangerous to receive puberty blockers to “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” than to treat other conditions like precocious puberty. Why, then, does SB1 proscribe the regulated medications to treat gender dysphoria, while leaving them available for myriad other purposes? So too is it difficult to ignore that Tennessee professes concern with protecting the health of minors while categorically banning gender-affirming care for even those minors exhibiting the most severe mental-health conditions, including suicidality.

This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner “inconsistent with . . . sex,” contains a sex classification. Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.

Excerpted by Rorie L. Solberg and Sobhi Sidani