On Equality: The Anti-Interference Principle
Donald J. Kochan
Chapman University School of Law
Revised December 23, 2010
University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 45, p. 431, 2011
Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 09-25
This Essay introduces the “Anti-Interference Principle” – a new term on the meaning of equality, or at least one not yet so-named in the equality lexicon – as a necessary foundation for achieving the goal of true equality. Equality has a long-standing place in the discussion of politics and jurisprudence and remains a struggle of definition today. Rather than rehash the mass of scholarship, this Essay seeks to summarize the general equality concept, and propose that the legal discourse on equality center on a requirement that governmental power must protect and respect equal treatment and opportunity, unconstrained, not equal outcomes. It argues that, to do so, equality requires that the government engage in anti-interference with individual choices and activities, so long as these things create no negative externalities to others. Absent avoidance of harm – special designations, privileges, or classifications necessarily interfere with equality in a manner that consequently violates the Anti-Interference Principle. Such actions necessarily interfere with equality. As such, if we are serious about respecting equality, such interference actions should be avoided.
The primary point is that equality matters. The purpose of this Essay is not to survey the vast political, jurisprudential and academic debate on equality but instead to take a broad look at the philosophical concept of equality itself. Part I discusses the general meaning of equality. Part II presents brief summaries of some selected recent developments regarding the concept of equality, namely California’s Proposition 8 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. Part III introduces a useful term for the equality discussion – “anti-interference” – and argues that the best way to foster equality is to embrace freedom, choice, and liberty in the absence of a showing that different treatment is justified to avoid harm. Simply stated, equality is best served when the government refrains from interfering with individual choice and individual freedom.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 29
Keywords: Hollingsworth, DOMA, Prop. 8, Proposition 8, Ninth Circuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, equality, discrimination, equal protection, Ricci, DeStefano, (Briscoe v. City of New Haven), same sex marriage, gay marriage, privileges or immunities, marriage equality act
JEL Classification: D60, D61, D62, D63, H00, H10, H11Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 1, 2009 ; Last revised: April 4, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 1.547 seconds