A) A state law establishes a minimum driving speed on federal highways. INCORRECT This option does not involve a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it applies uniformly to all drivers. The clause prohibits discriminatory treatment, but a minimum speed law is a general regulation that does not single out any particular group. Such laws are within the state's police power to ensure public safety and are subject to rational basis review, which they easily pass. There is no classification based on race, gender, or other protected status, so no equal protection issue arises.
B) A state law establishes a higher minimum wage for men than for women. CORRECT This is a textbook example of gender discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has consistently held that laws that treat men and women differently based on stereotypes or outdated notions of gender roles are unconstitutional. In cases like Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), the Court ruled that classifications based on sex are inherently suspect and must be subjected to strict scrutiny. A law that pays men more than women for the same work serves no important government interest and is clearly arbitrary. Such a law would be struck down as a denial of equal protection, as it creates an unjustified distinction that harms women economically and socially.
C) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum education level to serve as President. INCORRECT This option does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the Constitution itself sets qualifications for the presidency, including age, citizenship, and residency. An amendment to add an education requirement would be a change to the Constitution, not a state law, and the Equal Protection Clause applies to state actions, not to the federal constitutional amendment process. Even if such an amendment were enacted, it would not be subject to equal protection challenges because it would be part of the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the clause does not prohibit all classifications; it only prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory ones. An education requirement might be seen as rationally related to the qualifications for the office, though it would likely be controversial.
D) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum age to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. INCORRECT This option is similar to option C in that it involves a constitutional amendment, not a state law. The Constitution already sets age requirements for certain federal offices, such as the President (35 years old) and Senators (30 years old), but not for Supreme Court Justices. Adding an age requirement would be a policy choice made through the amendment process, which is not subject to equal protection scrutiny because it is a federal constitutional provision. Moreover, age classifications are generally subject to rational basis review, and a minimum age for justices could be rationally related to ensuring maturity and experience. Therefore, this scenario does not represent an equal protection violation.
