Final answer:
When laws or government actions are challenged on the basis of equal protection, the concern is whether these actions comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires individuals to be treated fairly and without unjust discrimination by the state.
Step-by-step explanation:
When laws or government actions are challenged based on equal protection, the issue is typically whether the state has acted in a manner that treats groups or individuals unfairly under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This clause is a crucial constitutional protection that demands the government treat all persons within its jurisdiction with the same degree of fairness, particularly when it comes to laws and governmental actions. The Supreme Court scrutinizes state regulations closely under this clause to ensure that no person or group is unjustly discriminated against, be it on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or other significant characteristics. Laws must be applied equally and government must have a valid, legitimate reason for treating individuals or groups differently, which usually must serve an important or compelling government interest.
For example, the case of Grutter v. Bollinger demonstrated the Supreme Court's use of the Equal Protection Clause to uphold a university's admissions policy that used race as a factor to achieve diversity and obtain a 'critical mass' of underrepresented minority students. In this instance, the Court concluded that this practice met the requirements of the clause. On the other hand, discrimination against protected classes, such as race, ethnicity, or religion, is subject to the highest level of judicial scrutiny, known as strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that their differential treatment serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.