Con Law: Civil Rights Amendments

Overview

The Civil Rights Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—form the constitutional foundation for modern civil rights protections. On the UBE, these amendments are tested primarily through issues of state action, equal protection, due process, and Congress’s enforcement power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Most Civil Rights Amendment questions focus on whether a government action improperly discriminates, infringes fundamental rights, or exceeds constitutional limits on federal or state power. The analysis frequently overlaps with individual rights doctrines, federalism principles, and judicial review standards.

Key themes tested on the UBE include:

(1) State Action Requirement
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments apply only to state action, not purely private conduct, subject to limited exceptions.

(2) Equal Protection Analysis
The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating similarly situated persons differently without adequate justification. The level of judicial scrutiny depends on the classification used and the rights affected.

(3) Substantive and Procedural Due Process
The Due Process Clause protects both fundamental rights (substantive due process) and fair procedures (procedural due process) from unjustified government interference.

(4) Congressional Enforcement Power
Congress may enforce the Civil Rights Amendments through appropriate legislation, but that power is remedial, not unlimited.

(5) Voting Rights Protections
The Fifteenth Amendment restricts race-based voting discrimination and supports federal legislation aimed at protecting the franchise.

Core Rules

I. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Rule:
The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime.

Key Features:

Applies to both public and private conduct
Prohibits slavery, involuntary servitude, and their “badges and incidents”
Congress has broad authority to enforce the Amendment

Enforcement Power:
Congress may enact legislation directly regulating private conduct to eliminate the badges and incidents of slavery.

II. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT — OVERVIEW

Textual Guarantees:

Privileges or Immunities Clause (rarely tested)
Due Process Clause
Equal Protection Clause

Scope:

Applies only to state action
Does not apply directly to the federal government (federal action is analyzed under the Fifth Amendment)

III. STATE ACTION REQUIREMENT (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)

Rule:
The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to actions attributable to the state.

State action exists when:

The government acts directly, or
Private conduct is fairly attributable to the state

Common State Action Tests:

Public function
Entanglement / significant involvement
State encouragement or coercion

Absent state action, Equal Protection and Due Process claims fail.

IV. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Rule:
States may not deny any person equal protection of the laws.

Core Principle:
Similarly situated individuals must be treated alike unless the government can justify differential treatment.

Framework:

Identify the classification
Determine the applicable level of scrutiny
Evaluate whether the government meets that standard

V. LEVELS OF SCRUTINY (EQUAL PROTECTION)

Strict Scrutiny

Applies to: race, national origin, alienage (with exceptions), fundamental rights
Government must show:
- Compelling interest
- Narrow tailoring

Intermediate Scrutiny

Applies to: gender, legitimacy
Government must show:
- Important interest
- Substantial relationship

Rational Basis Review

Applies to all other classifications
Government must show:
- Legitimate interest
- Rational relationship

VI. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)

The Due Process Clause has two distinct protections:

1. Procedural Due Process

Requires fair procedures before deprivation of:
- Life
- Liberty
- Property

2. Substantive Due Process

Protects fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of procedure

VII. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)

Rule:
Government interference with fundamental rights triggers strict scrutiny.

Common Fundamental Rights:

Privacy (marriage, contraception, family relations)
Procreation
Parental rights
Travel
Voting

Rights not deemed fundamental are reviewed under rational basis.

VIII. FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

Rule:
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race.

Scope:

Applies only to state action
Protects against racial discrimination in voting

Enforcement Power:
Congress may enact legislation to prevent and remedy race-based voting discrimination.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT POWER

Source:

Thirteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment §5
Fifteenth Amendment §2

Rule:
Congress may enforce constitutional rights through appropriate legislation.

Limitation:

Enforcement power is remedial, not substantive
Congress may prevent or remedy constitutional violations, but may not redefine rights

LEVELS OF SCRUTINY:

A. STRICT SCRUTINY (Hardest to satisfy)

When it applies

Race (any racial classification)
National origin
Alienage (state classifications, with key exceptions)
Fundamental rights burdens (often analyzed under Equal Protection if denial is based on classification; or under substantive due process)

Test
The government must prove:

A compelling governmental interest, and
The law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (often described as the least restrictive means).

How to apply narrowly tailored
A narrowly tailored law:

Targets the precise problem (not overinclusive or underinclusive in a way that suggests poor fit)
Uses a method that burdens rights/classifications no more than necessary
Considers workable alternatives (especially in race cases)

Key strict scrutiny patterns

Benign vs. invidious intent does not change the test: racial classifications get strict scrutiny either way.
Remedying past discrimination can be compelling only if supported by concrete findings; generalized societal discrimination is not enough.
Diversity rationale may appear in education contexts; still requires tight tailoring.

Typical result on the UBE: Most laws fail strict scrutiny unless the facts strongly support an extreme, well-fit measure.

B. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY (Moderately demanding)

When it applies

Gender / sex classifications
Legitimacy (nonmarital children)

Test
The government must prove:

An important governmental interest, and
The law is substantially related to achieving that interest.

How to apply “substantially related”

Requires a real fit, not speculation or stereotypes
Underinclusiveness/overinclusiveness may indicate insufficient fit
In gender cases, rationales based on generalizations are suspect

Gender-specific notes

Sex classifications receive heightened scrutiny even if framed as “protective” or “helpful.”
Biological differences can matter, but the government must still show an important interest and strong means–ends fit.

C. RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW (Default; most deferential)

When it applies

All classifications not triggering heightened scrutiny (e.g., age, disability, wealth, economic regulations)
Many social and economic regulations

Test
The challenger must show the law is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Practical application

Strong presumption of validity
Government can win with any conceivable legitimate purpose (even if not stated)
Over/underinclusiveness is usually tolerated

“Rational basis with bite” (exam concept)
On some fact patterns involving animus or politically unpopular groups, courts scrutinize more closely even while claiming rational basis. On the UBE, treat it as: the law fails because it appears motivated by bare hostility rather than a legitimate purpose.

Tests and standards

I. THRESHOLD: IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE

Test: What provision supplies the rule?

13th Amendment → slavery/involuntary servitude; may reach private conduct.
14th Amendment → state action required; includes:
- Equal Protection
- Due Process (procedural + substantive)
15th Amendment → race-based voting discrimination; state action required.

II. STATE ACTION TEST (14th/15th AMENDMENTS)

Test: Is the challenged conduct “fairly attributable to the state”?

If no → Equal Protection / Due Process / Fifteenth claims fail (unless 13th applies).

State action is most commonly found under these doctrines:

A. Public Function Test
Private actor performs a function that is traditionally and exclusively performed by the state (rare).

Examples tested: running elections; operating a company town (historical).

B. State Compulsion / Coercion Test
The state coerced or significantly encouraged the private conduct such that it is effectively the state’s act.

C. Nexus / Entanglement (Significant Involvement) Test
There is a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged conduct (e.g., joint participation, deep integration, state officials involved, or the state has insinuated itself into the private entity’s management).

D. Symbiotic Relationship (rarely necessary to name separately)
Mutual interdependence between state and private party such that the private conduct is treated as state action.

III. EQUAL PROTECTION FRAMEWORK (CORE EXAM METHOD)

Test: Does the law treat similarly situated persons differently?

UBE answer structure:

Identify the classification (race, gender, alienage, legitimacy, etc.).
Determine the level of scrutiny.
State the government’s burden under that scrutiny.
Apply with facts (fit between the interest and the means).
If necessary, consider facial vs. as-applied discrimination and discriminatory intent.

IV. DISCRIMINATORY INTENT VS. DISPARATE IMPACT

Test: Is there proof the government acted with discriminatory purpose?

Facial classification → intent is inherent.
Facially neutral law with disparate impact → Equal Protection violation requires discriminatory intent, not impact alone.

Evidence of discriminatory intent may include:

Legislative history and statements
Departures from normal procedures
Pattern of impact plus context showing purposeful targeting

V. ALIENAGE: SPECIAL SCRUTINY RULES (COMMON TRAP AREA)

General Rule (State action):
State discrimination against lawful resident aliens → Strict scrutiny

Major Exceptions (state laws):

Political function exception
If the job/benefit involves participation in self-government (e.g., police, public school teachers in some analyses, key state officials), the state may apply alienage restrictions under rational basis.
Undocumented persons
Not treated the same as lawful resident aliens; laws affecting undocumented persons often apply different doctrines (education access issues are a classic area). Be careful: the test may not be strict scrutiny.

Federal alienage classifications:
Often evaluated more deferentially because immigration is a federal power area. On the UBE, flag that federal rules receive greater deference than state rules.

VI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (RACE-CONSCIOUS MEASURES)

Test: If the government uses race as a criterion → strict scrutiny applies.

Government must show:

Compelling interest (often remedial or other recognized interest), and
Narrow tailoring (serious fit; limited use; no broad quotas; time limits and individualized consideration help).

VII. DUE PROCESS TESTS & STANDARDS

A. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS (PDP)

Test (3 steps):

Is there a protected liberty or property interest?
Was there a deprivation by the government?
What process is due?

Process Due Balancing (Mathews-style concept):
Consider:

Private interest affected
Risk of erroneous deprivation and value of additional safeguards
Government interest (including administrative burdens)

Typical required safeguards:

Notice
Opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner
Neutral decisionmaker
Some form of hearing (pre- or post-deprivation depending on context)

B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (SDP)

Test:

Is the asserted right fundamental?
- If yes → strict scrutiny (compelling interest + narrow tailoring)
- If no → rational basis

How to spot fundamental rights issues on the UBE
Look for government interference with:

Marriage and family relationships
Parenting/childrearing
Contraception/intimate choices
Travel
Voting (often also EP)

VIII. 13TH AMENDMENT TEST (PRIVATE CONDUCT ALLOWED)

Test: Does the law/act impose slavery or involuntary servitude, or constitute a “badge or incident” of slavery?

If yes → Congress may regulate private conduct to eliminate it.
This is the main civil rights amendment that does not require state action.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT POWER TESTS (14th/15th/13th)

A. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT §5 ENFORCEMENT POWER

Test: Is Congress acting to remedy or prevent constitutional violations rather than redefine rights?

Congressional legislation must show:

Congruence and proportionality between:
- The injury to be prevented/remedied, and
- The means adopted

Practical application

Stronger when Congress targets documented patterns of state violations
Weaker when Congress creates new substantive rights beyond what courts recognize

B. FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT §2

Test: Is the law aimed at preventing race-based denial/abridgment of voting rights?

Congress has broad power to target race discrimination in voting, but the statute should be tied to the constitutional harm.

C. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT

Test: Is the law a rational means to eliminate slavery’s badges and incidents?

Often broader than §5 because the 13th reaches private conduct directly.

Defenses and burdens

I. GENERAL BURDENS OF PROOF

Presumption of Constitutionality
Government action is presumed constitutional unless it implicates a suspect classification or fundamental right.

Challenger’s Initial Burden
The challenger must show:

State action (if required), and
Differential treatment, deprivation of a protected interest, or infringement of a right.

Shift in Burden Under Heightened Scrutiny
Once strict or intermediate scrutiny applies:

The government bears the burden to justify the law.

II. STATE ACTION DEFENSES (THRESHOLD DEFENSE)

Defense: No State Action
The government may argue:

The challenged conduct is purely private, and
No public function, coercion, or entanglement exists.

Effect:
If successful, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Fifteenth Amendment claims fail at the outset.

Challenger’s Burden:
To establish a sufficient nexus between the state and the conduct.

III. EQUAL PROTECTION BURDENS & DEFENSES

A. STRICT SCRUTINY CASES

Government’s Burden
The government must prove:

A compelling governmental interest, and
Narrow tailoring (no broader than necessary).

Common Government Defenses

Remedying specific, identified past discrimination
Protecting vital public interests (e.g., national security, electoral integrity)

Challenger’s Counter

Interest is generalized or speculative
Law is overinclusive or underinclusive
Less restrictive alternatives exist

B. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY CASES

Government’s Burden
The government must prove:

An important governmental interest, and
A substantial relationship between the law and that interest.

Common Government Defenses

Advancing public safety or administrative effectiveness
Addressing real, not stereotypical, differences

Challenger’s Counter

Justification relies on stereotypes
Weak or unsupported connection between means and ends

C. RATIONAL BASIS CASES

Challenger’s Burden
The challenger must show:

The law is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest.

Common Government Defenses

Any conceivable legitimate purpose
Administrative efficiency
Cost control or resource allocation

Key Exam Point
The government need not prove its actual motive or provide evidence.

IV. DISCRIMINATORY INTENT DEFENSES

Defense: No Discriminatory Purpose
Where a law is facially neutral:

The government may argue there is no evidence of intent to discriminate.

Burden on Challenger
The challenger must show purposeful discrimination through:

Legislative history
Procedural irregularities
Context plus disparate impact

Effect
Disparate impact alone is insufficient for an Equal Protection violation.

V. ALIENAGE-BASED DEFENSES

State Action

General rule: strict scrutiny applies.

Government Defenses

Political Function Exception
- Rational basis applies if the position involves participation in self-government.
Undocumented Status
- Government may argue heightened scrutiny does not apply.

Federal Alienage Defense

Federal classifications receive greater deference due to immigration authority.

VI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEFENSES

Government’s Burden

Must satisfy strict scrutiny for race-conscious measures.

Common Defenses

Remedying proven past discrimination
Narrowly tailored use of race as one factor among many
Temporary or limited programs

Challenger’s Counter

Quotas or mechanical formulas
Lack of individualized consideration
Insufficient evidence of past discrimination

VII. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS BURDENS

Challenger’s Burden
The challenger must establish:

A protected life, liberty, or property interest, and
A government deprivation of that interest.

Government’s Defense

Adequate process was provided
Emergency or impracticability justified abbreviated procedures

Burden Allocation
Once a protected interest is shown:

The government must justify the procedures used.

VIII. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS DEFENSES

Government’s Burden (Fundamental Rights)

Must satisfy strict scrutiny.

Government’s Burden (Nonfundamental Rights)

Must show a rational basis.

Common Government Defenses

Right is not fundamental
Regulation is neutral and generally applicable
Law is rationally related to legitimate interests (health, safety, welfare)

IX. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT POWER DEFENSES

A. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT §5

Government’s Defense

Legislation is remedial and preventative
There is congruence and proportionality between injury and remedy

Challenger’s Counter

Congress redefined substantive rights
Law is overly broad or insufficiently tied to state violations

B. FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT §2

Government’s Defense

Law targets race-based voting discrimination
Measures are appropriately tailored to prevent constitutional violations

C. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Government’s Defense

Regulation eliminates slavery or its badges and incidents
Applies even to private conduct

X. TENTH AMENDMENT–STYLE FEDERALISM DEFENSES

Challenger’s Argument

Federal law intrudes into traditional state functions

Government’s Defense

Civil Rights Amendments explicitly limit state sovereignty
Congress acted within enumerated enforcement authority

Exceptions and limitations

I. STATE ACTION LIMITATION (FOURTEENTH & FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS)

Rule:
The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments apply only to state action, not purely private conduct.

Effect:

Equal Protection and Due Process claims fail absent state action.
Voting-rights claims under the Fifteenth Amendment fail absent state involvement.

Common Pitfall:
Confusing heavy regulation or funding of private entities with state action—mere regulation is insufficient without coercion, encouragement, or entanglement.

II. PRIVATE CONDUCT EXCEPTION (THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT)

Rule:
The Thirteenth Amendment is the primary exception to the state action requirement.

Scope:

Applies to private conduct
Limited to slavery, involuntary servitude, and their badges and incidents

Limitation:

Not all discrimination qualifies as a badge or incident of slavery.

III. DISPARATE IMPACT LIMITATION

Rule:
A law that disproportionately impacts a protected group does not violate Equal Protection absent discriminatory intent.

Effect:

Facially neutral laws with unequal outcomes are generally upheld.
Proof of purpose is required.

Evidence Required:

Legislative history
Procedural irregularities
Context showing intent beyond mere impact

IV. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS LIMITATION (SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)

Rule:
Only rights deemed fundamental receive heightened protection.

Limitation:

Rights not deeply rooted in history and tradition receive only rational basis review.

Exam Application:

Courts decline to recognize new fundamental rights absent strong historical grounding.

V. RATIONAL BASIS DEFERENCE

Rule:
Under rational basis review, courts are highly deferential to government action.

Effect:

Most economic and social regulations are upheld.
Laws may be underinclusive or overinclusive.

Limitation on Challengers:

Courts accept hypothetical justifications; actual motive is irrelevant.

VI. ALIENAGE LIMITATIONS & EXCEPTIONS

General Rule:

State alienage classifications trigger strict scrutiny.

Major Exceptions:

Political Function Exception
- Rational basis applies to positions involving democratic self-governance.
Undocumented Persons
- Not entitled to the same level of protection as lawful resident aliens.

Federal Distinction:

Federal alienage classifications receive greater judicial deference.

VII. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LIMITATIONS

Rule:
Race-conscious measures must satisfy strict scrutiny.

Limitations:

Quotas are disfavored
Broad, indefinite programs are suspect
Remedies must target identifiable discrimination

Exam Tip:

Temporary, individualized programs are more defensible than permanent, mechanical ones.

VIII. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS LIMITATIONS

Rule:
Due process protections apply only when there is a protected liberty or property interest.

Limitation:

Unilateral expectations or abstract desires do not qualify.

Emergency Exception:

Post-deprivation process may satisfy due process where pre-deprivation process is impracticable.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL ENFORCEMENT POWER LIMITATIONS

A. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT §5

Rule:
Congress’s power is remedial, not substantive.

Limitation:

Congress may not redefine constitutional rights or expand them beyond judicial interpretation.

Test:

There must be congruence and proportionality between injury and remedy.

B. FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT §2

Rule:

Enforcement legislation must target race-based voting discrimination.

Limitation:

Laws too attenuated from constitutional violations may be invalidated.

C. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Rule:

Congress may regulate private conduct to eliminate slavery’s badges and incidents.

Limitation:

Regulation must plausibly relate to slavery or involuntary servitude.

X. FEDERALISM AND STRUCTURAL LIMITS

Rule:
Civil Rights Amendments alter—but do not eliminate—the federal-state balance.

Limitations:

Courts are skeptical when Congress intrudes deeply into areas of traditional state concern without clear constitutional justification.

XI. REMEDIAL SCOPE LIMITATION

Rule:
Even where a violation exists, remedies must be appropriately tailored.

Limitation:

Overbroad injunctions or sweeping remedies may exceed constitutional bounds.

Key Cases

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Declared state-mandated racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, applying the Equal Protection Clause. Establishes that racial classifications by the state trigger strict scrutiny.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Invalidated state bans on interracial marriage. Demonstrates that racial classifications affecting fundamental rights fail strict scrutiny.

Washington v. Davis (1976)
Held that disparate impact alone does not violate Equal Protection; discriminatory intent is required. A frequent UBE trap.

Craig v. Boren (1976)
Established intermediate scrutiny for gender-based classifications.

United States v. Carolene Products (1938) (Footnote 4)
Introduced the concept that heightened judicial scrutiny applies to laws targeting discrete and insular minorities or fundamental rights.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
Limited Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment §5 enforcement power by requiring “congruence and proportionality” between the injury and the remedy.

Policy Notes

Protecting Individual Liberty Against State Abuse
The Civil Rights Amendments were designed to constrain state power and safeguard individual rights, especially for historically marginalized groups.
Balancing Equality and Federalism
Judicial limits on enforcement powers reflect concern over preserving the federal-state balance while still enabling meaningful civil rights protections.
Preventing Judicial Overreach
Standards like rational basis review and limits on recognizing new fundamental rights preserve democratic decision-making.
Heightened Scrutiny as a Safeguard
Strict and intermediate scrutiny serve as tools to detect and invalidate laws rooted in prejudice or stereotyping.
State Action as a Structural Limit
The state action doctrine prevents constitutional law from becoming a general regulation of private behavior, except where expressly authorized (e.g., Thirteenth Amendment).
Congressional Power as Remedial
Limits on enforcement authority ensure Congress addresses real constitutional violations rather than redefining rights.
Historical Context Matters
Courts evaluate civil rights claims in light of historical discrimination, but require evidence—not assumptions—to justify race- or gender-based remedies.

Common Exam Traps

Skipping the state action analysis
Always determine whether the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment applies. Purely private conduct defeats Equal Protection and Due Process claims unless the Thirteenth Amendment is implicated.
Confusing the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
The Thirteenth Amendment reaches private conduct, but only in the narrow context of slavery and its badges and incidents. Do not assume all private discrimination is covered.
Assuming disparate impact equals discrimination
A facially neutral law with unequal effects does not violate Equal Protection without proof of discriminatory intent.
Failing to identify the correct level of scrutiny
Misclassifying the group or right at issue leads to the wrong test and an incorrect outcome.
Assuming benign intent avoids strict scrutiny
Racial classifications trigger strict scrutiny regardless of whether the purpose is remedial or harmful.
Using rational basis when heightened scrutiny applies
Gender, race, alienage (with exceptions), and fundamental rights require more demanding review.
Overstating congressional enforcement power
Congress may enforce constitutional rights, but it may not redefine or expand them beyond judicial interpretation.
Ignoring the political function exception
State alienage restrictions involving self-government may be upheld under rational basis.
Treating all due process claims the same
Procedural and substantive due process require separate analyses and different tests.
Failing to establish a protected interest in PDP claims
Without a recognized liberty or property interest, procedural due process protections do not apply.
Assuming fundamental rights are easily recognized
Courts are reluctant to recognize new fundamental rights absent strong historical grounding.
Overlooking federal vs. state distinctions
Federal alienage classifications and federal action are analyzed differently from state action.
Forgetting to allocate burdens explicitly
State who must prove what under each level of scrutiny—this earns easy points.
Using policy arguments instead of doctrine
On the UBE, doctrinal structure matters more than moral or policy-based reasoning.
Not concluding clearly
Always tie the analysis back to whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional under the applicable amendment.

Rapid Review

The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude and applies to private and state conduct.
Congress may regulate private conduct under the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate the badges and incidents of slavery.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action.
Equal Protection requires that similarly situated persons be treated alike.
Facial racial classifications trigger strict scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring.
Gender and legitimacy classifications trigger intermediate scrutiny.
Intermediate scrutiny requires an important governmental interest and a substantial relationship.
All other classifications are reviewed under rational basis.
Rational basis requires a legitimate governmental interest and a rational relationship.
Disparate impact alone does not violate Equal Protection without discriminatory intent.
Procedural Due Process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of life, liberty, or property.
Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights from government interference.
Government interference with fundamental rights triggers strict scrutiny.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits race-based denial or abridgment of voting rights.
Congress may enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, but only through remedial legislation.
Congressional enforcement must show congruence and proportionality between injury and remedy.
State alienage classifications generally trigger strict scrutiny, subject to key exceptions.
Purely private conduct generally falls outside Equal Protection and Due Process.
Always identify the amendment, state action, level of scrutiny, burden, and conclusion.