Suspect classification

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination.In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration, federal government action that discriminates based on alienage will receive rational basis scrutiny.In 2012, the U.S. District Court for Northern California discussed this type of classification, but applied heightened scrutiny without specifically labeling gays and lesbians a suspect or quasi-suspect class in its decision.[14] Striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.The practical result of this legal doctrine is that government sponsored discrimination on the account of a citizen's race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin is almost always unconstitutional, unless it is a compelling, narrowly tailored and temporary piece of legislation dealing with national security, defense, or affirmative action.
United Statesconstitutional lawEqual Protectionunconstitutionalstrict scrutinyHirabayashi v. United StatesKorematsu v. United Statesnational originreligionPerry v. SchwarzeneggerU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californiasexual orientationrational basisU.S. District Court for the District of NebraskaCitizens for Equal Protection v. BruningUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMontana Supreme CourtAlienagelegal aliensGraham v. RichardsonUnited States Congressimmigrationfederalrational basis scrutinyunlawful immigrantsPlyler v. DoeIntermediate scrutinylegitimacy of birthU.S. District Court for Northern CaliforniaWindsor v. United States2nd Circuit Court of Appealsdisabilityethnicitynationalnational securityaffirmative actionGrutter v. Bollingerfundamental rightrational basis reviewSupreme Court'sfederal courtsSupreme Court of CaliforniaCaliforniaConnecticutProtected groupTyranny of the majorityFrontiero v. RichardsonWayback MachineMississippi Univ. for Women v. HoganMississippi University for Women v. HoganNguyen v. INSUnited States Fourteenth AmendmentCitizenship ClauseSlaughter-House CasesMinor v. HappersettElk v. WilkinsUnited States v. Wong Kim ArkMackenzie v. HarePerez v. BrownellAfroyim v. RuskRogers v. BelleiSaenz v. RoeDue Process ClauseEconomic substantivedue processMugler v. KansasAllgeyer v. LouisianaHolden v. HardyLochner v. New YorkMuller v. OregonCoppage v. KansasBuchanan v. WarleyAdams v. TannerO'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.West Coast Hotel Co. v. ParrishRight to privacyMeyer v. NebraskaPierce v. Society of SistersGriswold v. ConnecticutRoe v. WadeDoe v. BoltonBowers v. HardwickWebster v. Reproductive Health ServicesPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyLawrence v. TexasWhole Woman's Health v. HellerstedtDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationAbortion jurisprudenceUnited States v. VuitchPlanned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthBellotti v. Baird IColautti v. FranklinBellotti v. Baird IIH. L. v. MathesonCity of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive HealthThornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & GynecologistsHodgson v. MinnesotaMazurek v. ArmstrongStenberg v. CarhartAyotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New EnglandGonzales v. CarhartAzar v. GarzaBox v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.June Medical Services, LLC v. Russoยง 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983)Monroe v. PapeO'Connor v. DonaldsonPaul v. DavisImbler v. PachtmanMonell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New YorkOwen v. City of IndependenceHarlow v. FitzgeraldFelder v. CaseyWill v. Michigan Department of State PoliceGonzaga University v. DoeInyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop CommunityCity of Rancho Palos Verdes v. AbramsFitzgerald v. Barnstable School CommitteeAshcroft v. IqbalLos Angeles County v. HumphriesConnick v. ThompsonJacobson v. MassachusettsZucht v. KingBuck v. BellPowell v. AlabamaMullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.NAACP v. AlabamaHoyt v. FloridaOyler v. BolesLoving v. VirginiaEpperson v. ArkansasIn re WinshipCleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurArnett v. KennedyTaylor v. LouisianaGoss v. LopezMathews v. EldridgeMoore v. City of East ClevelandDuren v. MissouriParham v. J.R.Parratt v. TaylorLogan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Kolender v. LawsonHudson v. PalmerCleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillEdwards v. AguillardTurner v. SafleyDeShaney v. Winnebago CountyMichael H. v. Gerald D.Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthWashington v. GlucksbergTroxel v. GranvilleCaperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.Obergefell v. HodgesWilliams v. PennsylvaniaEqual Protection ClausePace v. AlabamaYick Wo v. HopkinsPlessy v. FergusonCumming v. Richmond County Board of EducationLum v. RiceSipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of OklahomaShelley v. KraemerPerez v. SharpSweatt v. PainterMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State RegentsBrown v. Board of EducationBriggs v. ElliottDavis v. County School Board of Prince Edward CountyGebhart v. BeltonLucy v. AdamsBrowder v. GayleAnderson v. MartinGriffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward CountyMcLaughlin v. FloridaReitman v. MulkeyLee v. WashingtonGreen v. County School Board of New Kent CountyHunter v. EricksonUnited States v. Montgomery County Board of EducationAlexander v. Holmes County Board of EducationSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of EducationPalmer v. ThompsonCoit v. GreenGuey Heung Lee v. JohnsonKeyes v. School District No. 1, DenverNorwood v. HarrisonMilliken v. BradleyVillage of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Regents of the University of California v. BakkePalmore v. SidotiHunter v. UnderwoodWygant v. Jackson Board of EducationCity of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. DowellUnited States v. FordiceMissouri v. JenkinsGratz v. BollingerParents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1Fisher v. University of Texas ISchuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionFisher v. University of Texas IIStudents for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeBreedlove v. SuttlesGoesaert v. ClearyReed v. ReedMoritz v. CommissionerKahn v. ShevinGeduldig v. AielloStanton v. StantonEdwards v. HealyCraig v. BorenOrr v. OrrParham v. HughesCaban v. MohammedPersonnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneyKirchberg v. FeenstraMichael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma CountyJ.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.United States v. VirginiaUnited States v. SkrmettiRomer v. EvansPatsone v. PennsylvaniaTruax v. RaichTerrace v. ThompsonWebb v. O'BrienTakahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'nHernandez v. TexasSugarman v. DougallExamining Board v. Flores de OteroNyquist v. MaucletAmbach v. NorwickCabell v. Chavez-SalidoBernal v. FainterShapiro v. ThompsonArlington County Board v. RichardsMetropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. WardUnited States v. CruikshankSanta Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.Skinner v. OklahomaOyama v. CaliforniaHarper v. Virginia State Board of ElectionsLevy v. LouisianaWilliams v. RhodesOregon v. MitchellBoddie v. ConnecticutEisenstadt v. BairdSan Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezRichardson v. RamirezVillage of Belle Terre v. BoraasMassachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaZablocki v. RedhailNew York City Transit Authority v. BeazerCity of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Gregory v. AshcroftVacco v. QuillBush v. GoreEnforcement ClauseCivil Rights CasesKatzenbach v. MorganFitzpatrick v. BitzerCity of Boerne v. FloresFlorida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings BankKimel v. Florida Board of RegentsUnited States v. MorrisonBoard of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. GarrettNevada Department of Human Resources v. HibbsTennessee v. LaneUnited States v. GeorgiaShelby County v. HolderGold Clause CasesTrump v. Anderson