Sentences with phrase «equal protection clauses in»

After their case was consolidated with those of 28 other marriage equality plaintiffs from four states, the Court ruled 5 - 4 on June 26, 2015, that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same - sex couples under the due process and equal protection clauses in the Constitution.

A few justices did not find the trade - off sufficiently compelling to outweigh the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In essence, Judge Treu ruled that a quality education is guaranteed for all students in the state — which relies on effective teachers — and that anything less undermines the quality and violates the equal protection clause in the state constitution.

The request comes after a California Superior Court struck down various teacher tenure and seniority statutes under that state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the Vergara v. California case.

Not exact matches

«It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims,» the judges wrote on Thursday.

The suits by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign, filed in federal courts in Baltimore and Seattle, claim Trump's plan violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

Though the Second Circuit did not follow the Ninth Circuit's metaphysical flight into autonomous individualism, its own decision, based on the Equal Protection clause, and apparently safer, may in fact be more dangerous.

This «moral reading» of the Constitution calls on judges to act as moral philosophers: «equal protection of the laws» should mean what best promotes «equal concern and respect» for all humans; «liberty» in the «due process» clause should mean autonomy in matters important to personal development, and so forth.

On 23 February, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr., sent a letter to members of Congress in which he informed them that President Obama had determined that DOMA is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and, as such, will no longer be defended by his administration.

«The Court holds that denying civil marriage to same - sex couples violates their fundamental right to civil marriage under the due - process clause and their right to equal protection in the enjoyment...

Meanwhile, in New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Quill v. Vacco that while there is no «historic» right to die, the state of New York violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment with its prohibition of assisting suicide.

But the animus analysis reaches the same result, for a class is allegedly picked out and bullied in violation of the equal protection clause; whether the class is entitled to special judicial protection doesn't matter if the legislators or voters can be ascertained to have a suspect motive.

Radical feminism overrode the Constitution in United States v. Virginia, which held, seven votes to one, that the equal protection clause required Virginia Military Institute to admit women.

The Supreme Court, in an indecipherable opinion (Romer v. Evans), held that this denial of special status to homosexuals violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Obergefell, Kennedy's claim was that although historically the interpretation of a fundamental right to marry has not included same - sex couples, the «referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts» has led to an «enhanced understanding» of how the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment contain a right for same - sex couples to marry that was really there all along, though until now unseeIn Obergefell, Kennedy's claim was that although historically the interpretation of a fundamental right to marry has not included same - sex couples, the «referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts» has led to an «enhanced understanding» of how the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment contain a right for same - sex couples to marry that was really there all along, though until now unseein state and federal courts» has led to an «enhanced understanding» of how the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th amendment contain a right for same - sex couples to marry that was really there all along, though until now unseen.

In that case, the SC found that prohibiting blacks and whites marrying violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

The judicial precedent for equal protection for federal laws is somewhat fuzzy as there is not equal protection clause specifically written as part of the fifth amendment, and the specific clause is only in reference to states in the fourteenth amendment.

I believe that, in the end, the courts will settle this matter on the side of our Constitution's religious freedoms and equal protection clauses.»

And indeed, in some cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that party primaries violated the Equal Protection clause.

The Appellate Division, in a 4 - 1 decision handed down Thursday, said the tax cap doesn't violate due process or equal protection clauses of the constitution, as the New York State United Teachers» lawsuit claimed.

In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that «the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.&rEqual Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.&requal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.»

«We believe there might even be a problem constitutionally on the equal protection clause, in terms of fair representation, the demographics about upstate, downstate, you know, the island and all that enters into pla,» Kolb said.

In 1989 the Supreme Court of the United States declared the Board of Estimate unconstitutional on the grounds that Brooklyn, the most populous borough, had no greater effective representation on the Board than Staten Island, the least populous borough, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause pursuant to the high court's 1964 «one man, one vote» decision.

The Loving Story (Unrated) Civil rights documentary recounting the events leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving vs. Virginia, the historic 1967 case declaring interracial marriage legal under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Citing the 1954 Brown decision, Judge Rolf Treu, in Vergara v. California, declared the laws in violation of the equal protection clause of the California state constitution because they limited minority access to effective teachers.

In Brown, the court overturned, for public schools, its approval of this doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and established that segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth AmendmenIn Brown, the court overturned, for public schools, its approval of this doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and established that segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendmenin Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and established that segregated schools violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It could find that the equal protection clause prohibits wide within - state disparities in educational opportunity that disadvantage some students because they live in a property - poor district, as Justice Thurgood Marshall argued in his Rodriguez dissent.

Scalia, as mentioned above, sometimes seemed to accept this argument and agreed that the original understanding of the equal protection clause could not justify the outcome in Brown.

In an important sense, Ryan is right to claim that Scalia's embrace of Harlan's colorblind interpretation of the equal protection clause is «results - oriented.»

In other words, an originalist would proscribe the sort of discrimination that was originally understood to be prohibited by the equal protection clause and tolerate the rest.

Regarding race and the equal protection clause, Scalia's combination of text and tradition culminates in a simple rule: no governmental use of racial classifications except in extraordinary circumstances.

Scalia, in contrast, favored a colorblind interpretation of the equal protection clause, that, in his words, «proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state - provided education is no exception.»

Judge William M. Marutani of Pennsylvania's Common Pleas Court had ruled in August that single - sex public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment.

Admittedly, there are plenty of ambiguities in how the Court has interpreted and applied the equal protection, free exercise, and free speech clauses.

Litigation will continue nonetheless, because Ohio» the charter school law increases local districts» reliance on the local property tax, which increases inequalities in school funding, which leads to violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Parents Involved commenced this suit in the Western District of Washington, alleging that Seattle's use of race in assignments violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,5 and the Washington Civil Rights Act.6 Id., at 28a - 35a.

As we have held, one form of injury under the Equal Protection Clause is being forced to compete in a race - based system that may prejudice the plaintiff, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peńa, 515 U. S. 200, 211 (1995); Northeastern Fla..

[n3] In December, 1971, [n4] 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 AmendmenIn December, 1971, [n4] 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 Amendmenin a per curiam opinion holding the Texas school finance system unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In papers filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the teachers claimed that the layoff clause in their contract violated their equal - protection and due - process rights under the 14th Amendment and their right to protection from racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Sections 1981 and 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 187In papers filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the teachers claimed that the layoff clause in their contract violated their equal - protection and due - process rights under the 14th Amendment and their right to protection from racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Sections 1981 and 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 187in their contract violated their equal - protection and due - process rights under the 14th Amendment and their right to protection from racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Sections 1981 and 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The plaintiffs in the case, minority students in California, had argued that California's teacher tenure system violates the equal protection clause because it protects teachers who are ineffective, and poor and minority students are more likely to be assigned these ineffective teachers.

In April 2013, FEA and NEA, along with seven accomplished teachers and the local education associations in Alachua, Escambia and Hernando counties, filed a lawsuit, Cook v. Stewart, contending that this provision violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. ConstitutioIn April 2013, FEA and NEA, along with seven accomplished teachers and the local education associations in Alachua, Escambia and Hernando counties, filed a lawsuit, Cook v. Stewart, contending that this provision violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitutioin Alachua, Escambia and Hernando counties, filed a lawsuit, Cook v. Stewart, contending that this provision violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County that the County had to reopen its public schools on the grounds that it was still in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were provideIn 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County that the County had to reopen its public schools on the grounds that it was still in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were providein Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County that the County had to reopen its public schools on the grounds that it was still in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were providein violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.23 By closing its public schools and subsequently subsidizing private academies that only admitted white students, the County, along with the state board of education and state superintendent, continued to deny black students the rights their white peers were provided.

A declaration that the State's funding scheme, which results in charter students receiving 60 to 75 cents on every dollar received by district students, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution; A declaration that the State's funding scheme, which denies facilities funding to charter schools, violates the New York State Constitution; A declaration that the State's funding scheme, because of its overwhelming and targeted impact on minority students, unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of race.

Equal Protection Clause: A clause found in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions assuring people «the equal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and reliEqual Protection Clause: A clause found in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions assuring people «the equal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin andProtection Clause: A clause found in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions assuring people «the equal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and relClause: A clause found in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions assuring people «the equal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and relclause found in the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions assuring people «the equal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and reliequal protection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin andprotection of the laws,» usually understood to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and religion.

Laws that keep bad teachers in the classroom... therefore violate the equal - protection clause of the state constitution....

In the new case, Martinez v. Malloy, the plaintiff attorneys argue that the state laws violate equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The court ruled that education was not a fundamental right and that the wealth - based inequalities in Texas's school finance formula did not violate the equal protection clause.

Represented by Los Angeles law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, the plaintiffs allege teacher protections such as tenure, seniority rules in layoffs and other teacher dismissal statutes disparately keep ineffective teachers in the classroom in violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause.

They further argued that because public school funding is the responsibility of the state, Texas was in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

In 2007 in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the United States Supreme Court invalidated race - conscious plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clausIn 2007 in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the United States Supreme Court invalidated race - conscious plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clausin Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the United States Supreme Court invalidated race - conscious plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clausin Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the United States Supreme Court invalidated race - conscious plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clausin Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, finding that explicitly pursuing racial balance in K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clausin K - 12 schools by using race as a criterion for admission and placement was impermissible under the Constitution's equal protection clause.