Answer:
Part 1
One notable case in which the Supreme Court used the principle of equal protection, particularly through the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to expand civil rights for marginalized groups is Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs, same-sex couples from various states, argued that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case ultimately focused on whether the states could ban same-sex couples from marrying or refusing to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the principles of equal protection and dignity under the law. The Court held that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry and that the denial of this right violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
Obergefell v. Hodges influenced the expansion of civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community. It affirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation. The decision had a profound impact on the legal recognition of same-sex marriages across the United States, contributing to a broader movement for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.
Part 2
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court grappled with issues related to affirmative action in higher education. The case involved Allan Bakke, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School. The school had set aside a specific number of seats for minority applicants through a separate admissions program.
The University of California, Davis, had implemented a dual admissions system, reserving 16 out of 100 seats for qualified minority applicants. Bakke argued that this quota system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it allegedly discriminated against him based on his race.
The Supreme Court, in a fragmented decision, held that while the use of race as a factor in admissions decisions could be constitutionally permissible, the specific quota system employed by the university was unconstitutional. Writing the controlling opinion, Justice Lewis Powell concluded that strict racial quotas were impermissible because they amounted to a form of racial discrimination against non-minority applicants. Powell argued that race could be considered as one of many factors in the admissions process to achieve a diverse student body but rejected the mechanical use of quotas.
The decision in Bakke limited the way affirmative action programs could be structured. It emphasized that while diversity in education was a compelling state interest, the means of achieving that diversity must be narrowly tailored and avoid rigid numerical quotas. This decision has influenced subsequent cases on affirmative action and shaped the legal standards for considering race in university admissions. The Bakke decision underscored the delicate balance the courts must strike between promoting diversity and ensuring equal protection under the law.
Step-by-step explanation: