Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Equal Protection And Supreme Court Cases - 1,200 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... of Brown by using precedents which, according to Strauss, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits only explicit classifications... facially neutral actions that are in fact not based on race (Glennon. 486). The institutional role of the Court in this case is that the Court adheres to its policy that strict scrutiny will only be used in cases where discrimination is evident in a statute. Concerning the slippery slope that the Court in cautious about, by favoring a minority who did not gain an advantage from a facially neutral statue, it could open the door to numerous other legal actions by those negatively effected by issues such as taxes and welfare.

Therefore, these three reasons all further narrow the boundaries of the Equal Protection Clause since the ruling on Brown, and show a majority in the Court that is highly concerned with overbearing costs and time that further examination into the history of discrimination in legal policies would bring. While the Court takes the easy way out in this case to avoid costs and questions that would be raised by a further investigation, Justice Stevens raises some interesting questions although he concurs with the decision on the case. Justice Stevens notes that often the discriminatory intent of a statute is only seen in its outcomes, and that the Court is not examining discrimination thoroughly enough in regards to its current and past history in the country by only applying strict scrutiny to cases cases with invidious intent. Stevens criticizes Justice White's view of making large, general statements to be applied to an array of cases in order to justify the police test in this case.

Stevens further argues against White's notion that since recruitment of black police candidates occured, that the test is not discriminatory. The arguments that Justice Stevens posses are adapted by the dissent in this case. Particularly the dissent focuses on the fact that the the great difference in test scores between blacks and whites alone warrants strict scrutiny in this case because of inherent advantages within the test that whites have. Furthermore, the dissent notes that the administrators of the test knew of the racial discrepancies in the results but continued to use it. While both sides in Washington make valid points, the decision sets an increasingly narrow standard for future cases to be judged upon. In Mccleskey v.

Kemp (1987) the Court once again examined the Equal Protection Clause in relation to invidious intent. The case involved an African-American, Mccleskey, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a white person in Georgia. Mccleskey claimed that his sentencing violated the Equal Protection Clause becasue more blacks recieved the death penalty in Georgia than whites in murder cases. A study of statistics, the Baldus Study, supported this claim by showing that in Georgia the death penalty was given in 22 percent of the cases involving black dependents and white victims; 8 percent of the cases involving white dependents and white victims; 1 percent of the cases involving black dependents and black victims; and 3 percent of the cases involving white dependents and black victims (523 - 524). This study was used as the main peice of evidence for discrimination using race for Mccleskey to argue for strict scrutiny to be applied in this case. Applying the precedent of the Washington case, the majority opinion of the Court argued that any racial effects of an action did not automatically deem it in violation of the constitution.

Under the ruling of the Court Mccleskey would have had to prove that discriminatory purpose was the reason behind any actions, and each particular decision to impose the death penalty is made by a petit jury selected from a properly constituted venire. Each jury is unique in its composition, and the Constitution requires that its decision rest on consideration of innumerable factors that vary according to the characteristics of the individual defendant and the facts of the particular offense (524). The majority further discredits the use of the Baldus study by asking for discrimination in this specific case rather than in general. By asking for specific discriminatory evidence in Mccleskey the Court appears to contradict itself since it using its standards that were broadly written to apply broadly rather than specifically to cases. In addition, the majority of the Court simply disregards the history of racial discrimination in Georgia as additional evidence to support the use of strict scrutiny. Moreover, the fear of a slippery slope is once again on the minds of the majority because if their ruling favored Mccleskey it would open the door for any court decision to be contended in respect to discrimination.

The dissent focuses on the majority's fear of a slippery slope because the fear of additional legal challenges to rulings on cases where some discriminatory factor is present should not be reason enough to dismiss Mccleskey's claims. The dissent believes that doing so is in violation of his rights. In addition, the dissent argues against the majority opinion that the Court should not determine the punishments for crimes since the legislative bodies are concerned with that aspect of the law. Dissenting Justices argue that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life. The Court thus fulfills, rather than disrupts, the scheme of seperation of powers by closely scrutinizing the imposition of the death [penalty] (528 - 529).

The dissent has several solid arguement's that are not brought into account: the history of racial discrimination in Georgia, the Baldus Study, and the majority's fear that Mccleskey's claim would open the door to widespread challenges to all aspects of criminal sentencing, but nevertheless the Court continues to avoid using strict scrutiny as it continually becomes more narrowly applied (526). In conclusion, we have seen the Court attempt to direct the Equal Protection Clause to bring change to civil rights and impact a society whose legislation and beliefs might not have been ready for such dramatic change in Brown v. Board of Education. While the Court's ruling in this case did bring about radical social change it did not set a framework for itself on how future discriminatory cases were to be clearly judged.

The court continued to narrow its interpretation of racially discriminatory cases as we see in the Washington case. In this case the Court required the evidence of discriminatory intent in the police test and ignored any possible action regarding the imputation of inferiority. The Court further continues to narrow its scope in the Mccleskey case throwing out statistics and historical evidence of discrimination due to its fear of slippery slopes and therefore it fails to view this case with the highest scrutiny. Since the Court has not taken a solid position in regards to racial discrimination, as we have seen through these three cases, it continues to attract controversy in its rulings and interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Due to the continually narrow path the Court has taken in regards to the Equal Protection Clause and its applications in these cases, the Court has been influenced by an underlying fear of slippery slopes both socially and legally, and continues to struggle without any clear interpretation and stance on discrimination.


Free research essays on topics related to: percent of the cases, slippery slope, strict scrutiny, racial discrimination, equal protection clause

Research essay sample on Equal Protection And Supreme Court Cases

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com