연령차별과 장애차별에 관한 미연방대법원 판례|RISS 상세보기

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

There are so many ways that governments draw distinctions among people. For example, laws that determine who can have a driver's license, who can be a police officer all involve classifications. Any of these laws can be challenged as denying equal protection. Each would be subjected only to rational basis review, unless the discrimination was with regard to race, national origin, gender, alienage, or legitimacy. Thus far, these are the only types of discrimination for which the United States Supreme Court has approved either intermediate or strict scrutiny.
The United States Supreme Court has expressly rejected heightened scrutiny for some other types of discrimination. Especially, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that only rational basis review should be used for discrimination based on age and for discrimination based on disability even if these classifications share much in common with the types of discrimination for which heightened scrutiny is used.
There is a history of discrimination against the elderly with judgements often based on stereotypes. A person's age is immutable in the sense that a person cannot voluntarily change it and it is a characteristic that is visible. However, the United States Supreme Court has expressly declared that only rational basis review should be used under equal protection analysis for discrimination based on age.
Under rational basis review the plaintiff has the burden of showing that there is no legitimate reason for the targeted law, or that the means are not rationally related to the asserted government interest.
In Murgia(427U.S.307), Bradely(440U.S.93) and Gregory(501U.S.452), using rational basis review, the court ruled that states might impose a mandatory retirement age for police officers, and that federal law might impose different mandatory retirement age for different government jobs.
Although the rational basis test makes it very difficult to challenge age classifications under the Constitution, the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age discrimination and specifically outlaws mandatory retirement ages.
The United States Supreme Court also has ruled that only rational basis review should be used for discrimination based on disability. Accordingly, laws that discriminate against the mentally retarded or the mentally ill receive rational basis review.
In Cleburne Living Center(473U.S.432), using rational basis test, the court invalidated a city's denial of a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded. Laws that restrict the location of group homes for the mentally retarded may not be based on antipathy toward the mentally retarded. In Doe(509U.S.312), using rational basis test, the court upheld a Kentucky law which set different standards of proof for commitment of the mentally ill and the mentally retarded, and allowed guardians and family members to participate as parties in commitment proceedings for the mentally retarded , but not for the mentally ill. State laws that distinguish between mentally ill and mentally retarded persons are permissible.

번역하기

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "The United States Supreme Court Decisions related to This Article"

2 John E. Nowak, "Principles of Constitutional Law" Thomson West 2007

3 Louis Fisher, "Political Dynamics of Constitutional Law" Thomson West 2005

4 Joanne Banker Hames, "Constitutional Law:Principles and Practice" Cengage Delmar Learning 2004

5 Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" Aspen Publishers 2006

6 Jerome A. Barron, "Constitutional Law in a Nutshell" West 2005

7 Lee Epstein, "Constitutional Law for a Changing America" CQ Press 2007

8 Jacqueline R. Kanovitz, "Constitutional Law" LexisNexus 2005

9 Geoffrey R. Stone, "Constitutional Law" Aspen Publishers 2005

10 Allen Ides, "Constitutional Law" Aspen Publishers 2004