AP U.S. Government & Politics Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Warm-Up/HW Check The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied nor abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” Which of the following is true about the ERA? A) Congress never approved the ERA. B) The ERA fell three states short of the three-fourths majority it needed to be ratified. C) Congress required special ratifying conventions in the states. D) The ERA was not ratified by a single state. E) Congress forced the ratification of the ERA.

Women and Equal Protection

Intermediate Scrutiny All sex/gender classifications are reviewed using intermediate scrutiny: Is the classification Substantially Related to an Important government interest? Why might the Court use a lower standard of review for sex/gender classifications than for racial classifications?

Comparison of Sex and Race Differences 1) Purpose of the 14th Amendment—protects against Race discrimination; explicitly Not against Sex discrimination 2) Women are Not a Minority of the population 3) Women have had the (actual) right to vote since 1920 4) Biological differences exist between men and women Similarities 1) History of discrimination 2) Immutability of the characteristic 3) Trait is at least generally irrelevant to legitimate government purposes 4) Both groups are disproportionately poor

Debating the Standard of Review Reed v. Reed (1971) Idaho law preferring males over females as Estate Administrators is Struck Down; under the Rational-Basis Standard Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) Discriminatory military policy on taxes/dependents is Struck Down The justices disagree on the Standard: 4 apply Strict Scrutiny; 3 use Rational-Basis For several years after Frontiero, the Court became more receptive to Sex Discrimination claims; but avoided Equal Protection analysis; using Due Process instead. When it did resort to Equal Protection, the justices purported to apply Rational-Basis Review, although the scrutiny was clearly heightened Craig v. Boren (1976) Oklahoma statute allowing women to purchase a certain type of alcohol—but not men of the same age—is Struck Down. The Court enunciates the Intermediate Scrutiny Standard

Social Stereotypes Cases Hogan v. Mississippi Dept. of Health (1981) All-female nursing college violates Equal Protection Social stereotype of nurses as females Many of the early Social Stereotype cases involved material disadvantages to Men U.S. v. Virginia (1996) Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was one of the last colleges in the nation to cling to an all-male admissions policy Virginia’s proposed ‘female-equivalent’ of VMI is Struck Down as an Insufficient Remedy. The proposed VWIL was based on studies, suggesting that women were Less Inclined than men towards VMI’s “adversarial method” Although this is based on some evidence, it is still a Stereotype. As long as Some Women can meet all the individual requirements of VMI’s system, then they must be allowed to compete

Natural Differences Cases Michael M. v. Sonoma County Sup. Ct. (1981) Statutory Rape statute is Upheld; even in the case of a 17-year-old male and 16-year-old female Objections: Why not a statute for Older Women and Younger Men as well? If avoiding Underage Pregnancy is the State’s Interest; then why not punish Both participants? Intermediate Scrutiny was clearly Not applied Nguyen v. INS (2001) Citizenship rules for out-of-wedlock children born Outside the U.S. depends on Which Parent is a citizen (if the mother is a citizen, the child is a citizen) Court Upholds this; based on a supposed Biological Difference—it has traditionally been easier to identify the parentage of the Mother; because she is Present at Birth. This is no longer the case; due to conclusive DNA testing Opinion says that what is important is establishing a “Real Relationship” between parent and child—this is Presumed if the parent is present at birth; which the mother Always is. (This is clearly a Stereotype; and the real motivation is probably limiting the number of children applying for citizenship.)

Reminders: This Week Tomorrow: Practice FRQ #17 Thursday: Student Supreme Court 2018 Term Opinions are Due Friday: SCOTUS Cases Quiz

Friday: SCOTUS Cases Quiz 5 Sections: The First Amendment Substantive Due Process, Right to Privacy, Right to Bear Arms Searches and Seizures Rights of the Accused and Prisoners Civil Rights In each section, 5 Cases Match the name of the case with the issue, holding, test, or other important language or principle from the case.

1) West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Supreme Court Cases Quiz: Practice Section Match the case names in Column A with the issue, holding, test, or other info in Column B A) Exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence is incorporated against the states B) Privacy is declared a fundamental right C) 3-part test for determining whether a state’s relationship with a religious institution violates the Establishment Clause D) The Right to Bear Arms is declared an individual right E) Remaining silent is declared a form of expressive conduct (speech), deserving of 1st Amendment protection 1) West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 2) Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 3) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 4) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 5) District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Homework 1) Textbook, p. 170-173 2) Prepare for Practice FRQ #17 (LAST ONE!!) Voting Rights: Measures used to deny African-Americans the right to vote Measures used by African-Americans to secure the right to vote