Flunking the Class of One/Failing Equal Protection
William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law School
William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 435, 2013
Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 316
This Article considers the equal protection 'class-of-one' doctrine in light of recent developments, both at the Supreme Court and in the lower courts. After Part I explains the background and current state of the doctrine, Part II considers how that doctrine provides insights into such basic equal protection concepts as discriminatory intent and animus. It also critiques the Court’s analysis of the class-of-one, arguing that it has mishandled these concepts and in so doing caused doctrinal anomalies and lower court confusion. Part II offers an alternative approach to the class-of-one that corrects those problems while still resolving the concerns that may have influenced the Court to embrace its mistaken analysis.
Part III considers how the Supreme Court’s mishandling of the class-of-one risks infecting other areas of equal protection law, and American constitutionalism more generally. It explains how the Court’s approach threatens the core constitutional commitment that government must seek to promote a public purpose. It also discusses a subsequent Court decision that cites its most recent class-of-one case in a way that increases that threat. The Article concludes by calling on the Court to reconsider both its aggressive reading of its class-of-one jurisprudence and the direction of that jurisprudence itself, in order to reverse the doctrinal and conceptual damage it has caused, and to prevent further damage. The Article thus demonstrates that the class-of-one provides insight into larger equal protection issues. At the same time, it risks infecting those larger issues with the mistakes flowing from the Court’s mishandling of this small, under-studied and poorly-understood doctrine.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 49
Keywords: class of one, Olech, enquist, equal protection
Date posted: November 15, 2012 ; Last revised: December 13, 2013
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.204 seconds