Equality
Arneson v. State
864 P.2d 1245 (Mont. 1993)
Statute
Can receive increase
IF retired AND (retiree or beneficiary) is 55 or older
IF not retired AND receiving disability or survivorship benefits
“The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
Art II. § IV Montana Const.
—
Gartner v. Iowa Dep’t of Public Health
830 N.W.2s 335 (Iowa 2013)
—
“All men and women are, by nature, free and equal.”
Iowa Const. Art 1. § 1
“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Iowa Const. Art 1. § 6
—
Three Justifications
- Accuracy
- Efficiency
- Paternity
—
AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State
928 N.W.2d 21 (Iowa 2019)
—
“All men and women are, by nature, free and equal.”
Iowa Const. Art 1. § 1
“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Iowa Const. Art 1. § 6
Justifications
- Labor peace
- Health and safety
- Justification for 30% line: Need to draw it somewhere
Aztec Municipal Schools v. Cardenas
549 P.3d 488 (N.M. 2024)
Workers’ compensation statute limits the maximum period of disability benefits for a secondary mental impairment to “the maximum period allowable for the disability produced by the physical impairment.”
Due Process
Procedural Due Process
If the government is going to deny someone a life, liberty, or property interest, what process is due?
—
State v. Veale
972 A.2d 1009 (N.H. 2009)
Important Precedent:
Paul v. Davis
424 U.S. 693 (1976)
—
“No subject shall be deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.”
Part I, Article 15, New Hampshire Const.
—
Due Process Inquiry
Is this a legally protected interest?
If so, what process is due?
—
Balancing test for determining what process is due
- Private interest that will be affected
- Risk of erroneous deprivation and probable value of additional procedural safeguards
- Government interest (including burden of additional safeguards)
—
M.E.K. v. R.L.K.
921 So.2d 787 (Fla. App. 2006)
Supreme Court Precedent:
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Serv. of Durham County, N.C. (1981)
Florida Precedents:
O.A.H. v. R.L.A. (1998)
In the Interest of M.C. (2005)
Review
—
Conceptions of Equality
Equal treatment → Non-discrimination from the state
Equal opportunity → Minimum state obligation to address existing inequality
Equal outcome → State guarantee to fix existing inequality
Federal Constitutional Backdrop
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment.
—
Tiers of scrutiny
—
Rational basis
Applies when no suspect classification is at issue.
To survive judicial review, the law must serve a legitimate government interest and there must be a rational connection between the law’s means and that interest.
—
Intermediate scrutiny
Applies to quasi-suspect classifications such as gender.
To survive judicial review, the law must further an important government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.
—
Strict scrutiny
Applies to suspect classifications such as race, national origin, and religion.
To survive judicial review, the law must further a compelling government interest and law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Conceptions of Equality
Equal treatment → Non-discrimination from the state
Equal opportunity → Minimum state obligation to address existing inequality
Equal outcome → State guarantee to fix existing inequality
Why put equality in a state constitution?
What’s the point?
Malabed v. North Slope Borough
70 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2003)
Commonwealth v. Penn. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n
334 A.2d 839 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1975)
State v. Rivera
612 P.2d 526 (Haw. 1980)
Driscoll v. Corbett
69 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2013)
Arneson v. State
864 P.2d 1245 (Mont. 1993)
Gartner v. Iowa Dep’t of Public Health
830 N.W.2s 335 (Iowa 2013)
AFSCME Iowa Council 61 v. State
928 N.W.2d 21 (Iowa 2019)
Aztec Municipal Schools v. Cardenas
549 P.3d 488 (N.M. 2024)