Chapter 10. THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND THE REVIEW OF THE REASONABLENESS OF LEGISLATION

2. Social and Economic Regulatory Legislation

• RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK p. 676 (1949)
• what classification was utilized, and what was its purpose?
• what was the purpose of the regulation as such?
• why did the city choose the particular classification of persons subject to the regulation?
• what objection was made to the classification's use?
• that it was "underinclusive" in relation to its purpose?
• that it was "overinclusive" in relation to its purpose?
• what standard of review is applied by the Court?
• Williamson v. Lee Optical, p. 678 (1955)
• what is "invidious discrimination"?
• Is it different from the use of classifications lacking a "rational basis"?
• are "one-step-at-a-time" legislative solutions always immune from EP attack?
• FCC V. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., p. 679 (1993)
• what classification was utilized, for what purpose?
• what general activity is being regulated?
• what specific categories of this activity are exempt from regulation?
• does the legislation articulate a purpose for the classification?
• what standard of review is applied by the Court?
• "ends": how does the Court determine the purposes of the classification?
• "means": does it undertake a separate evaluation of "fit", or the relationship between the means and the end(s)?
• Heller v. Doe, p. 683 (1993)
• What classification, for what purpose?
• What standard of review?
• What are the state's interests being served by the classification?
• Central State University v. AAUP, p. 686 (1999)
• what classification, for what purpose?
• did the state court purport to apply a “rational basis” test?
• why did the Supreme Court overturn the state court’s decision?
• Retirement Board v. Fritz, p. 687 (1980)
• what regulation, and what purpose?
• what standard did the Court purport to apply?
• "rational basis"?
• in doing so, is the Court free to speculate about Congress' purposes?
• can a regulation survive this test, if it directly contradicts one of the stated purposes of the law?
• Schweiker, p. 689 (1981): Medicaid recipients, as qualified for small welfare allowance?