Sentences with phrase «equal protection requirements»

However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Not exact matches

Were these provisions to become law, they could result in some states, legislatively, providing one level of care or protection to some of their citizens and a different level to others — which, could violate the equal protection and fairness requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

For one thing, it tends to treat them (indeed, by legal requirements of equal protection, must treat them) as interchangeable units of the citizenry, and too often this means impersonally.

A key requirement of democracy is equal protection of all stakeholders - i.e., if at some point there is a completely fair vote of 2/3 population preferring the choices advocated and implemented by party A; and 1/3 preferring the choices of party B - then a system must ensure that the minority gets adequate protections and fair treatment; so that while at this moment country gets steered to choice A, the minority doesn't get punished in any way for saying that in their opinion choice B might be best; and if some of the original voters change their mind, the choice B can still be known even if the governing clique that was elected on the idea of A wants to continue with A forever.

The requirement to recertify a union yearly with an absolute majority — 51 % of all bargaining unit members — is in violation of the constitutional protections of Free Speech and Equal Protection

In Rutan v. Republican Party (1990), he wrote that «the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of «equal protection of the laws,» combined with the Thirteenth Amendment's abolition of the institution of black slavery, leaves no room for doubt that laws treating people differently because of their race are invalid.»

«The Education Code expressly allows a school district to deviate from... seniority for... purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws,» said the ruling from Judge William F. Highberger.

There isn't one specific provision in the California constitution that's violated, exactly: Rather, the court identifies three «pertinent» clauses in the constitution: a guarantee of equal protection under the law, a provision ordering the legislature to encourage «intellectual [and] scientific improvement,» and a requirement that the legislature «provide for a system of common schools.»

Just last month, citing a part of the education code that says that a district may deviate from seniority (f) or purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws, Superior Judge William Highberger ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

All imported food under this Act shall meet requirements for food safety, inspection, labeling, and consumer protection that are at least equal to those applicable to food grown, manufactured, processed, packed, or held for consumption in the United States.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I believe that this state of affairs largely arises from the deep history of protection of confidentiality within the legal profession and the mistaken notion that protection of confidentiality equals protection of privacy and ensures compliance with the relevant legal requirements that surround the protection of privacy and use of information.

In addition, SB4 is already under attack by the City of Houston and other jurisdictions on numerous constitutional grounds, which focus on the constitutional requirements for arrests, searches, seizures, due process, and equal protection.

The case presents an equal protection challenge to U.S. immigration law that imposes different residency requirements on unwed citizen mothers than unwed citizen fathers when conferring citizenship on children born abroad out of wedlock.

Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the 1 - year residency requirement did not violate the right to travel protected by the Equal Protection Clause, concluding that only a rational basis is required to uphold a residency requirement for city employment.

The court found that the state statutes imposing notice and spacing requirements had no rational basis, were preempted by the FHA, and violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.