Talk:Suspect classification

Homosexuals in CA

Note that the California Supreme Court, in its May 15 2008 decision regarding Same Sex Marriage, defined homosexuals as a "Suspect Classification", thereby possibly elevating the class in California cases. I don't understand this well enough to change this page, but I think it should be noted here given the current blanket statement that gender and sexual preference do not fall into this category.

This article addresses US Supreme Court jurisprudence, not California jurisprudence, therefore the classifications should be limited to those recognized by the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court has not recognized sexual preference as a suspect class. I will remove the section unless a better alternative is presented. Biccat (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Check that, I did some fairly substantial edits on this page. Should be fairly accurate, but it could use some formatting and editing work. Biccat (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Underlying the CA Supreme Court Decision to grant suspect classification status to sexual orientation is the notion that all of those requirements are not necessary. The court granted the status without examining the question of immutability, citing religion as another suspect classification which is not immutable. To say that immutability is requisite, and then grant the status to something which is not immutable seems contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lammyiscool (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

California has no bearing on federal courts. Therefore, I think it would be inappropriate to include the California case here. A link to a page on California Law (or other states which have state constitution based suspect classifications) would be sufficient to raise the issue to interested readers. 12.216.185.185 (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cal Supreme Court ruling was based entirely on California *state* law. That said, because the term "suspect class" is used more by more than just federal courts, this article can be updated to better reflect such usage. Geodanny (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I updated the organization in an attempt to better make this distinction Geodanny (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy link

The link in the first paragraph leads to the disambiguation page for the term, therefore failing to address the question of "Legitimacy in what sense of the word?" (cannot find tilde on keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.245.247 (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It is meant to go to legitimacy (law). Geodanny (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation as a Suspect Class in CA

Prop 8 does not change the fact that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" under CA law, as the ruling upholding Prop 8 makes very clear (see, for example, the top of page 42 here). --L33tminion (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrected Information About States and Sexual Orientation

Hawaii and Vermont did not recognize sexual orientation to be a "suspect class." The gay marriage lawsuits in those two states argued that it was a form of gender (as opposed to sexual orientation) discrimination - which is a "suspect class." The article also erroneously listed Colorado, whose anti-gay amendment in Romer was repealed under a rational basis test. California, Connecticut and Iowa have all recognized gays to be a "suspect class." Not co-incidentally, all of them granted marriage equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhogarth (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I am fairly certain that religion has not been classified a suspect class. The source cited is not reliable and should not be used. A better citation would be to a specific case or to treatises by Chemerinsky, Tribe, etc. A quick, cursory search turns up no cases as well as no references that would support the assertion. Religious discrimination is generally disposed of through the First Amendment Free Exercise or Establishment Clauses.

See Wirzburger v. Galvin, (1st Cir, 2005) ("Where a plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise claim has failed, the Supreme Court has applied only rational basis scrutiny in its subsequent review of an equal protection fundamental right to religious free exercise claim based on the same facts. Locke, 540 U.S. at 721, n.3 (citing Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 375, n. 14, (1974))"), available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=041625&exact=1

See also Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah The Court struck used the First Amendment to strike down a law that targeted a specific religious sect performing rites required by their religion. The law was clearly drafted to treat practices of Santeria different than other religions. Geodanny (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the Court disposed of a case on one ground does not mean that an alternative ground for its disposition does not exist. The Court has in fact said that religion is a suspect class. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) ("One of these constraints, imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . is that the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on 'an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification'"); Burlington National Rail Road Co. v. Ford, 504 U.S. 648, 651 (1992) ("Because the Montana venue rules neither deprive Burlington of a fundamental right nor classify along suspect lines like race or religion, they do not deny equal protection to Burlington unless they fail in rationally furthering legitimate state ends."); Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 186 (1992) ("the Government refused to file a motion for suspect reasons such as his race or his religion."); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 (1982) ("when we are presented with a state law granting a denominational preference, our precedents demand that we treat the law as suspect and that we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality."); City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976) ("Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.141 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Organization

This article was poorly organized. I took a few minutes to improve its flow, correct misstatements, and add more headings. More changes are needed. Information is still presented twice. This article is about suspect classification but has turned into a general article about classifications under equal protection jurisprudence. Perhaps this should be rectified or the article merged/moved into such an article. Also, the state section now needs to be built out. Sexual orientation is likely not the only difference between state and federal classifications. Geodanny (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

suspect classification versus other

The way the article is currently organized, only the classifications identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as suspect classifications should be listed under suspect class. Discussion about all other possible classifications should go under the 'All Others' heading. The classifications are the creation of the Court. You can validly argue that another class should be considered a suspect, but until the Court makes that determination, it is not suspect or even quasi-suspect. Most of those listed have made it before the Court, which has then declined to classify it suspect. For example, that's why the discussion of religion is under All Others, yet it arguably is the most likely other suspect classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodanny (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

not just US

In reviewing a Chilean case law article that was appealed to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I noticed that suspect classification language and ideas were included there as well. Note that he IACHR's use of "American" is a nod to the continents, not the USA, and that the signatories on the treaty that respect that court are entirely in Central and South America, whereas our article suggests that the concept is entirely of a United States-based scope. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "suspect classification" was an invention of the U.S. Supreme Court. There may be similar concepts in other countries but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have different names. I think it makes sense to keep this page U.S.-only for now. --ΨΦorg (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to "immutable" - broken preview pop-up?

I leave this for review, as I don't know how to edit and I'm pretty sure this is self-explanatory...it's a link to a screenshot, of a portion of the first section (post-ToC), that I am unable to directly upload without an account (and since I don't know how to edit and frankly don't have much inclination, since there are many far more qualified and skilled in ensuring accuracy and quality, making an account still wouldn't help as I'd never reach the ten edits needed lol!).

Anyway here you go: https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56652830_10157218830434439_3782908057881673728_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=25354c71a24e32acd01e30f62a06b6f0&oe=5D03A027 76.170.99.57 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

"Unpopular minority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unpopular minority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 9#Unpopular minority until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)