{"title":"The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review IV","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Equal protection arguments were once described by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as the “last resort” of persons making constitutional claims. The court’s reliance on the Equal Protection Clause was slight until the 1950s, in part because “equal protection” was understood only to implicate legislature classifications that were “partial” rather than general.” After the use of the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate racial segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, equal protection arguments became a staple of cases involving racial, gender, and sexual-preference discrimination.","PeriodicalId":283594,"journal":{"name":"Law in American History, Volume III","volume":"192 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law in American History, Volume III","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Equal protection arguments were once described by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as the “last resort” of persons making constitutional claims. The court’s reliance on the Equal Protection Clause was slight until the 1950s, in part because “equal protection” was understood only to implicate legislature classifications that were “partial” rather than general.” After the use of the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate racial segregation in public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, equal protection arguments became a staple of cases involving racial, gender, and sexual-preference discrimination.
大法官奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯(Oliver Wendell Holmes)曾将平等保护的论点描述为提出宪法要求的人的“最后手段”。直到20世纪50年代,法院对“平等保护条款”的依赖程度还很低,部分原因是“平等保护”被理解为只涉及立法机构的“部分”分类,而不是一般分类。在布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v. Board of Education)中,利用平等保护条款使公立学校的种族隔离无效后,平等保护论点成为涉及种族、性别和性偏好歧视的案件的主要论点。