Implications Of The 14th Amendment Essay

Words: 949
Pages: 4

The concept of animus was first given recognition by Justice Kennedy in the Romer v Evans case back in 1996 (Epstein and Walker). Animus can be generally understood as prejudiced, spiteful, and malevolent ill will, and when it comes to laws and policies, the supreme court has generally conceded that when animus is involved in the creation of laws, the law in question does not serve a valid government interest. Since Donald Trump signed the executive order enacting the Travel Ban, also coined the Muslim-Ban by laypersons, several people have been concerned about the constitutionality of the matter. Based off of what I have learned throughout the course of this class, I would argue that the ban is a violation of the equal protection clause established …show more content…
Technically speaking, the 14th amendment was specifically designed to apply to states; however, one could make the argument that state and local governments would eventually become implicit in the discriminatory federal statute through enforcement once Muslims are detained at airports solely because they are Muslim. Further, the 14th amendment put forth several clauses that work to protect and ensure fair treatment, but this travel ban specifically violates the equal protection clause of the amendment. Ratified in 1868, the 14th amendment, composed of two sections, is the foundation of the general constitutional protection we have against discrimination (Epstein and Walker). The equal protection clause states that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Epstein and Walker). Now, in order for someone to establish a legitimate claim of discrimination under the equal protection clause, the person is required to show how the proposed law creates unfair treatment between groups of people, and state action must be involved (Epstein and Walker). Both requirements would easily be met given someone is detained at an airport specifically because of their faith or nationality. Furthermore, as established by the court’s decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the fourteenth amendment definitely applies to non-citizens as well; therefore, peoples entering the country should arguably have some of the same protections citizens in this country have by