A government agency treats two neighboring property owners differently under the same ordinance. A local board grants a permit to one applicant while denying an identical request from another. A regulation burdens one class of people while exempting another without apparent reason.
Each of these situations can raise a question under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That clause imposes a fundamental constraint on government power: the government generally cannot treat similarly situated people differently without adequate justification.
What Is the Equal Protection Clause?
The Equal Protection Clause is found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
California’s Constitution provides parallel protections. Article I, Section 7(a) states that a person may not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.” In many cases California courts interpret state equal protection claims alongside federal ones.
The clause does not require the government to treat every person identically. Laws routinely classify people by age, income, profession, and conduct. What equal protection prohibits is arbitrary or unjustified differential treatment, particularly when the classification involves a suspect class or a fundamental right.
The Three Tiers of Equal Protection Review
Rational Basis Review
Most laws survive equal protection analysis under rational basis review. A law passes rational basis if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts applying this standard give the government broad deference. The challenging party must show there is no plausible justification for the classification. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993).
Land use regulations, zoning ordinances, licensing requirements, and most economic regulations typically receive rational basis review. A plaintiff challenging a zoning rule under equal protection must show the classification is arbitrary and lacks any conceivable rational basis.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Courts apply intermediate scrutiny to classifications based on sex and some other categories. The government must show the classification is substantially related to an important government interest. Intermediate scrutiny is more demanding than rational basis but less stringent than strict scrutiny.
Strict Scrutiny
Strict scrutiny applies when a law burdens a suspect class or a fundamental right. Suspect classes include race, national origin, and religion. Fundamental rights include voting, interstate travel, and access to courts. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985), illustrates how the Court evaluates classifications. The Court struck down a zoning ordinance that singled out a group home for people with intellectual disabilities, finding the classification was based on irrational prejudice rather than any legitimate government purpose.
As-Applied Equal Protection Challenges
Equal protection claims can arise from government actions applied unequally even when the underlying law is facially neutral. A plaintiff may argue that a government agency applied an ordinance selectively, granting benefits to some while denying them to identically situated others without justification.
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), recognized the “class of one” theory. A property owner can bring an equal protection claim even without being a member of a protected class, by showing the government treated them differently from others similarly situated with no rational basis for the distinction.
Class-of-one claims often arise in land use and permitting contexts. A property owner who was denied a permit granted to neighboring properties in the same zone, under the same standards, may have an equal protection argument if the differential treatment lacks any rational justification.
Equal Protection in California Land Use and Regulatory Contexts
California courts apply equal protection principles to zoning decisions, permit denials, code enforcement, and regulatory classifications. Where a local agency applies its regulations inconsistently or singles out particular owners without justification, an equal protection challenge may be viable.
California also has independent state constitutional equal protection protections that have in some contexts been interpreted more broadly than the federal standard. State courts may apply heightened scrutiny to classifications affecting fundamental interests under the California Constitution even where federal courts would apply only rational basis review.
Practical Implications for California Property Owners
An equal protection argument can arise alongside other constitutional claims. A property owner challenging a permit denial, zoning restriction, or government enforcement action may have both a due process claim and an equal protection argument if the government treated them materially differently from similarly situated neighbors or applicants.
The strength of an equal protection claim depends on identifying comparator situations: other property owners, permit applicants, or regulated parties who were treated more favorably, with no rational distinction between their situations and the plaintiff’s.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does equal protection mean in practice?
Equal protection means the government must treat similarly situated people similarly. It does not require identical treatment in all cases, but it prohibits arbitrary classifications. When the government distinguishes between groups, it must have a justification proportionate to the strength of the constitutional protection that applies.
Can a single property owner bring an equal protection claim?
Yes. The class-of-one doctrine recognized in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), allows a single individual to bring an equal protection claim without belonging to a protected class. The plaintiff must show the government treated them differently from others who are similarly situated, with no rational basis for the distinction.
Is equal protection the same as due process?
No. Due process addresses whether the government followed fair procedures and whether a law is substantively arbitrary. Equal protection addresses whether similarly situated people are treated similarly. Both clauses appear in the Fourteenth Amendment and both can apply to the same government action, but they address distinct constitutional questions.
