imported>Tuckerlieberman: /* Suspect class */ In December 2024, Justice Laurie McKinnon, in a ruling for the Montana Supreme Court, recommended that "this Court should ... hold that transgender status is a suspect class."

2024-12-11T19:38:31Z

Suspect class: In December 2024, Justice Laurie McKinnon, in a ruling for the Montana Supreme Court, recommended that "this Court should ... hold that transgender status is a suspect class."

New page

{{short description|US legal term}}
In [[United States]] [[constitutional law]], a '''suspect classification''' is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an [[Equal Protection Clause|Equal Protection]] claim alleging [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]] discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the [[strict scrutiny]] standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

== Criteria ==
The United States Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect class, but the Court has not declared that any particular set of criteria are either necessary or sufficient to qualify.<ref name="Wintemute">Wintemute, Robert, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JcFhzZiPF2YC&dq=%22criteria+for+identifying+suspect+classifications%22&pg=PA61 Sexual Orientation and Human Rights]'' (1995)</ref>

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:
* The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.<ref name="Wintemute" />
* They possess an [[wikt:immutable|immutable]]<ref name="Lyng">''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=477&invol=635 Lyng v. Castillo]'' (1986)</ref> or highly visible trait.
* They are powerless<ref name="Lyng" /> to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.<ref>See: ''[[US v. Carolene Products Co.#Text of Footnote Four|U.S. v. Carolene Products]]''.</ref>)
* The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.<ref>See: ''[[Frontiero v. Richardson]] 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973)''.</ref>

==Classification ==
=== Suspect class ===
The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of ''[[Hirabayashi v. United States]]''<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Hirabayashi v. United States |vol=320 |reporter= U.S. |opinion= |pinpoint= 81|court= United States Supreme Court|accessdate=2013-09-13}}</ref> and ''[[Korematsu v. United States]]''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Korematsu v. United States|vol=323 |reporter= U.S. |opinion= |pinpoint= 214|court= United States Supreme Court|accessdate=2010-09-13}}</ref> The Supreme Court recognizes [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[national origin]], and [[religion]] as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under [[strict scrutiny]].

In ''[[Perry v. Schwarzenegger]]'', the [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California]] in its Findings of Fact commented that [[sexual orientation]] could be considered a suspect class, but on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential [[rational basis]] review.<ref>{{cite court |litigants= Perry v. Schwarzenegger|vol= |reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint=122 |court=United States District Court for the Northern District of California|date=2010-08-05|url=http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf|quote= The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation.}}</ref> The [[U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska]] held the same in ''[[Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning]]'',<ref>[http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf ''Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning'', 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D.Neb. 2005)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714235759/http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf |date=2011-07-14 }}</ref> but was reversed on appeal by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]].<ref>[http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf ''Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning'', 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213233153/http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf |date=2011-12-13 }}</ref>

As the law currently stands, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity is considered a federal suspect class, although many states do consider them such.{{cn|date=November 2024}} In December 2024, Justice Laurie McKinnon, in a ruling for the [[Montana Supreme Court]], recommended that "this Court should ... hold that transgender status is a suspect class."<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 11, 2024 |title=DA 23-0572, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, 2024 MT 303 |url=https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=499424 |access-date=December 11, 2024 |website=juddocumentservice.mt.gov}}</ref>

==== Alienage ====
[[Alienage]], or the state of being an alien, i.e. a non-citizen of the United States, is a unique category. For purposes of [[U.S. state|state]] law, [[alien (law)|legal aliens]] are a suspect class (''[[Graham v. Richardson]]''<ref>''Graham v. Richardson'', 403 U.S. 365 (1971)</ref>). As such, state actions are analyzed according to strict scrutiny. In contrast, because the [[United States Congress]] has the power to regulate [[immigration]], [[Federal government of the United States|federal]] government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive [[rational basis scrutiny]]. State acts that affect [[alien (law)|unlawful immigrants]] are generally analyzed with rational basis review unless the topic is education of children, in which case they are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny based on ''[[Plyler v. Doe]]''.<ref>''Plyler v. Doe'', 457 U.S. 202 (1982)</ref>

=== Quasi-suspect class ===
[[Intermediate scrutiny]] is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Sex<ref>''[[Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan|Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan]]'', 458 U.S. 718 (1982).</ref> and [[Legitimacy (family law)|legitimacy of birth]] have been held to be quasi-suspect classes. In 2012, the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|U.S. District Court for
Northern California]] discussed this type of classification, but applied heightened scrutiny without specifically labeling gays and lesbians a suspect or quasi-suspect class in its decision.<ref>''Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management'', C 10-00257 (N.D. Cal. 2012).</ref> Striking down Section 3 of [[Defense of Marriage Act|DOMA]] as unconstitutional in ''[[Windsor v. United States]]'' (2012), the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|2nd Circuit Court of Appeals]] held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.<ref>[http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/1afe4f62-fbf9-4e0d-a409-26ab7396971e/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf ''Windsor v. United States''], 12-2335-cv(L), October 18, 2012.</ref> It was the first time a federal court had applied quasi-suspect classification in a sexual orientation case.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kemp|first=David|title=The End of an Unjust Law: The Second Circuit Strikes Down DOMA and Sets the Stage for Supreme Court Review|url=http://verdict.justia.com/2012/10/22/the-end-of-an-unjust-law|publisher=Justia|date=October 22, 2012|accessdate=October 27, 2012}}</ref> The Supreme Court, however, has not decided whether sexual orientation fits into any identified class.

=== All others ===

[[Rational basis review|Rational basis scrutiny]] is applied to all other discriminatory statutes. Rational basis scrutiny currently covers all other discriminatory criteria—''e.g.'', [[Ageing|age]], [[disability]], wealth, political preference, political affiliation, or criminal conviction.

== Levels of judicial review ==

=== Strict scrutiny ===
To satisfy the strict scrutiny, suspect classifications such as race, alienage, or national origin must be necessary to promote a compelling state interest when there is no less restrictive alternative method available to accomplish the government (state's) interest.

The practical result of this legal doctrine is that government sponsored discrimination on the account of a citizen's [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], skin [[color]], [[ethnicity]], [[religion]], or [[Nationality|national]] origin is almost always unconstitutional, unless it is a compelling, narrowly tailored and temporary piece of legislation dealing with [[national security]], defense, or [[affirmative action]]. ''[[Korematsu v. United States]]'', regarding Japanese internment, and ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'', upholding affirmative action based upon racial diversity, are the only cases in which a racially discriminatory law has been upheld under the strict scrutiny test.

Strict scrutiny is also applied to restrictions of any [[fundamental right]], regardless of the group involved.<ref>{{cite web|last=Souter, David|first=US Supreme Court Justice|title=Vacco v. Quill - 521 U.S. 793 (1997)|url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/793/case|work=Justia.com}}</ref>

=== Intermediate scrutiny ===
When [[intermediate scrutiny]] is involved, the courts are more likely to oppose the discriminatory law when compared to a rational basis review particularly if a law is based on gender. However, a court will likely uphold a discriminatory law under intermediate scrutiny if the law has an exceedingly persuasive justification and applies to real, fact-based, or biological differences between the sexes.<ref>''[[Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan]]'', 102 S.Ct. 3331 (1982)</ref><ref>''[[Nguyen v. INS]]'', 121 S.Ct. 2053 (2001)</ref>

=== Rational basis ===
When [[rational basis review]] is used, it means that the classification is one that overwhelmingly tends to be rational, e.g. distinguishing criminals from non-criminals. This leads to wide political discretion and a focus of judicial resources to other cases where the classification employed tends to be more suspicious, and thus close judicial balancing is needed.

== Classifications under state law ==
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court's]] holdings impose a minimum standard to which each [[U.S. state|State]] must adhere. Hence, a State law that discriminates against citizens because of their race, must be reviewed by the applicable State and inferior [[United States federal courts|federal courts]] using the strict scrutiny basis of review. A State may, generally, choose to give its citizens more rights or protections than the minimum [[Federal government of the United States|federal]] standard when considering state law. For example, in 2008 the [[Supreme Court of California]] used the strict scrutiny basis of review to strike down a [[California]] statute denying legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

[[California]] classifies sexual orientation as a suspect class under state law. [[Connecticut]] and [[Iowa]] classify sexual orientation as a quasi-suspect class under their respective state laws.<ref>Stewart, Chuck, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=IwNhIK9Fn1sC&dq=sexual+orientation+and+suspect+class&pg=PA185 Homosexuality and the Law: A Dictionary]'' (2001)</ref>

==See also==
* [[Protected group]]
* [[Tyranny of the majority]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

{{US14thAmendment}}

[[Category:Civil rights and liberties]]
[[Category:United States equal protection case law|*]]
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]]
[[Category:Anti-discrimination law in the United States]]
[[Category:American legal terminology]]

Suspect classification - Revision history

imported>Tuckerlieberman: /* Suspect class */ In December 2024, Justice Laurie McKinnon, in a ruling for the Montana Supreme Court, recommended that "this Court should ... hold that transgender status is a suspect class."