Note: This is an educational course, not legal advice.
Equal protection has a second branch. Even an ordinary classification gets strict scrutiny if it gives some people less of a fundamental right than others. The rights the Court has protected this way include voting, access to courts in some settings and interstate travel. This builds on other classifications, where wealth by itself got only rational basis.
| Case | Right | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Reynolds v. Sims (1964) | voting (equal weight) | both houses of a state legislature must have districts of substantially equal population: "one person, one vote" (8 to 1) |
| Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) | voting | a poll tax in state elections violates equal protection (6 to 3); the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) had already banned poll taxes in federal elections |
| Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) | interstate travel | a one-year waiting period for welfare penalized new residents' right to travel |
| Saenz v. Roe (1999) | interstate travel | paying new residents their old state's lower benefits violated the right to travel, protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause |
| Bush v. Gore (2000) | voting (equal treatment of ballots) | per curiam: seven justices found that Florida's recount, with varying standards from county to county, raised equal protection problems; five held no remedy could be completed in time. The Court said its reasoning was limited to the present circumstances |
Why it works
Why does a fundamental right raise the tier? Because these rights protect the political process itself and a person's ability to take part as an equal; a law that dilutes some votes or bars new residents from benefits undermines the fairness of everything else. But the list is limited. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) the Court held that education, though vital, is not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution, because it is not explicitly or implicitly guaranteed there; school funding differences got rational basis review. Many state constitutions do guarantee education, and state courts have decided funding cases under them.
Key idea
A classification that burdens a fundamental right gets strict scrutiny: voting (Reynolds: one person, one vote; Harper: no poll taxes), travel (Shapiro, Saenz). Education is not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution (Rodriguez).
Worked example: Unequal districts
A state senate has one district of 50,000 people and another of 500,000. Valid?
- Voting is a fundamental right; diluting some votes triggers strict review.
- Reynolds v. Sims requires substantially equal population in both houses of a state legislature.
- A ten-to-one difference cannot meet that.
Answer: Invalid under Reynolds v. Sims.
Worked example: A school funding claim
Parents in a property-poor district sue in federal court, arguing that school funding tied to local property taxes violates a fundamental right to education. Result?
- Rodriguez held education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, and wealth is not a suspect class.
- So rational basis applies, and local control of schools is a legitimate interest.
- A claim under the state constitution, in state court, could come out differently.
Answer: The federal claim fails under Rodriguez.
Common mistake
Thinking education is a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. Rodriguez (1973) held it is not, though many state constitutions protect it. A related slip: thinking poll taxes were banned in all elections by the Twenty-fourth Amendment. That amendment covers federal elections; Harper struck them down in state elections.