![]() 1,036,290,922 visitors served. |
|
![]() Dictionary/ thesaurus | ![]() Medical dictionary | ![]() Legal dictionary | ![]() Financial dictionary | ![]() Acronyms | ![]() Idioms | ![]() Encyclopedia | ![]() Wikipedia encyclopedia | ? |
equal protection |
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Wikipedia | 0.06 sec. |
equal protectionIn U.S. law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied such protection under the law as is enjoyed by similar persons or groups—i.e., persons similarly situated must be treated similarly. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits states from denying any person “the equal protection of the laws.” Until the mid-20th century the requirement was applied minimally—except in some cases of racial discrimination, such as the use of literacy tests and grandfather clauses to restrict the voting rights of blacks. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court of the United States upheld “separate but equal” facilities for the races, thus sanctioning racial segregation. Beginning in the 1960s, the court under Chief Justice Earl Warren dramatically expanded the concept, applying it to cases involving welfare benefits, exclusionary zoning, municipal services, and school financing. During the tenure of Chief Justices Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, the court continued to add to the types of cases that might be adjudicated under equal protection, including cases involving sexual discrimination, the status and rights of aliens, abortion rights, and access to the courts. |
|
? Mentioned in | ? References in periodicals archive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Board of Education put the weight on government to provide equal protection and opportunity to everyone, a trend that the country is quickly regressing from. The court ruled that the very fact of segregation--even if schools for blacks were equal in quality to schools for whites--violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the government provide all citizens with "the equal protection of the laws. After being convicted for violating the exclusion order, Korematsu (an American of Japanese descent) challenged his conviction on the grounds that, among other things, the order denied him the equal protection of the laws implicit in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. |
| Free Tools: |
For surfers:
Browser extension |
Word of the Day |
Help
For webmasters: Free content | Linking | Lookup box | Double-click lookup | Partner with us |
|
|---|