I'm putting together the final written question for 2301, and I'd like to share it -- or the topic -- prior to posting it.
We're covering civil rights and the equal protection clause. Quite often the nature of civil rights policy comes down to whatever the Supreme Court (or more precisely its members at a given moment in time) interprets the phrase "equal protection of the laws" to mean. In what context can equal protection be mandated, and what criteria can government (the executive branch generally though not exclusively) use to treat people differently.
In that context, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case which highlighted the different ways that Congress has mandated how citizen mothers as opposed to citizen fathers can transfer citizenship to any child of theirs born out of wedlock and out of the country. The bar is lower for citizen mothers than citizen fathers. The case involves a citizen father who, due to the language of the law, could never have transferred citizenship to his child. The question presented to the court was whether this violated his right to the equal protection of the laws.
I want my 2301s to read through the links below and address how the Supreme Court treats cases involving claims of unequal protection due to gender (sex/gender discrimination). What issues are raised in this case and what is the likely outcome (a decision is unlikely to be reached until next year).
- ScotusBlog: Flores-Villar v. United States.
- Immigration Prof Blog.
- NYT Story.
- Oral Argument Audio.
- Oral Argument Transcript.
