The traditional standard of examining the challenges of equal protection of classifications has developed largely, but not completely, in the context of economic regulation.1447 It is even more commonly used there, although it also occurs in many other contexts,1448 including so-called “class of one” challenges.1449 A more active review has been developed for classifications based on circumstances or circumstances ” “1449 A more active review has been developed for classifications based on “suspicious” circumstances or affecting a “core” interest. “The Fourteenth Amendment prescribes `equal protection of laws,` and laws are not abstract propositions. Justice Frankfurter once wrote: “They do not refer to abstract units A, B and C, but are the expression of a policy arising from specific difficulties and aimed at achieving certain objectives through the use of specific legal remedies. The mere provision of a benefit or service does not constitute evidence of state involvement in discrimination through the mere provision of electricity, water, police and fire safety, access to communal recreational facilities in general, and the lower court`s order was too broad because it was not based on an appropriate finding of state action. “If, however, the city or other government agency rations otherwise freely accessible recreational facilities, the case for government action will of course be stronger than if the facilities are simply available to all arrivals without conditions or reservations.” 417 U.S. at 573–74. See also Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (plaintiffs unsuccessfully sued officials, challenging not the officials` administrative decision on Medicaid payments, but the nursing home`s decisions on discharge and transfer of patients). 1515 The main case was Palmer v. Thompson, 403 USA 217 (1971), in which a 5-4 majority refused to order a city to reopen its supposedly closed pools in order not to comply with a court order to end segregation. The majority strongly cautioned against lifting the government measures after an assessment of the official reason, id.
at 224-26, but it also concluded (and the Davis Court interpreted it as an actual decision) that because the pools were closed to whites and blacks, there was no discrimination. The city`s reason for closing the pools – to avoid violence and economic loss – could not be accused of racist motives. See also Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972). 1458, e.g. F.S. Royster Guano Co.
v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920) (abolishing an extrastate income tax on domestic enterprises operating in the state, while exempting domestic corporations that do only extrastate business); Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 USA 550 (1935) (abolition of a differential tax on gross receipts as arbitrary because it was not sufficiently proportional to net profit); Mayflower Farms v. Ten Eyck, 297 U.S. 266 (1936) (Abolition of a milk price control system that distinguished certain milk producers based on their date of market entry). In a landmark case in which the Court considered a long list of contacts between the state and a private company, it ruled that a tenant of real estate in a municipally owned and operated off-street parking garage could not exclude African Americans from his restaurant. The court noted that the building was built by the Crown and owned by the Crown, that the restaurant was an integral part of the complex, that the restaurant and parking were complementary, that the park authority had regulatory authority over the tenant, and that the restaurant`s financial success benefited the government agency.
The “degree of state involvement and participation in discriminatory acts” was thus sufficient to condemn them.1380 1459 In Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 537 (1934), with respect to the limitations of the due process clause, the Court stated that “in the absence of other constitutional restrictions, a state is free to pursue any economic policy, which can reasonably be considered charitable”. It is believed in 1492 that the “theory of fundamental rights” originated in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 1493, in which the court subjected a state law providing for the forced sterilization of habitual criminals to “rigorous scrutiny,” which was deemed necessary because the law interfered with “one of the fundamental civil rights.” In the partition decisions, Chief Justice Warren stated that “since the right to exercise the right to vote freely and without hindrance protects other fundamental civil and political rights, any alleged violation of citizens` right to vote must be carefully considered.” 1494 A tightening of the traditional test was noted in the Court`s opinion, which removed certain restrictions on eligibility to vote,1495 and the phrase “compelling state interest” was used in Brennan J.`s opinion in Shapiro v.