A) A state law establishes a minimum driving speed on federal highways. INCORRECT This scenario does not involve a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it applies uniformly to all drivers. The clause prohibits discriminatory treatment, not reasonable regulations that apply equally to everyone. Setting a minimum speed limit is a valid exercise of state police power to promote highway safety, and it does not create any classification based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Therefore, it is not a violation of equal protection.
B) A state law establishes a higher minimum wage for men than for women. CORRECT This law explicitly discriminates based on sex, which is a suspect classification under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court has held that gender-based classifications must serve an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest. A law that pays men more than women for the same work is based on archaic stereotypes and fails any level of scrutiny. This type of discrimination is precisely what the Equal Protection Clause was designed to prevent, as it denies women equal protection under the law. Historical cases like Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) and United States v. Virginia (1996) have reinforced that such differential treatment is unconstitutional.
C) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum education level to serve as President. INCORRECT The Equal Protection Clause applies to state actions, not to the qualifications for federal office, which are set by the U.S. Constitution. Article II specifies the requirements for the presidency: natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and 14 years of residence. Adding an education requirement would require a constitutional amendment, but it would not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it would apply equally to all candidates. Moreover, the clause does not prohibit all classifications; it only prohibits arbitrary and discriminatory ones. An education requirement, if applied uniformly, would not be a violation.
D) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum age to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. INCORRECT Similar to option C, this scenario involves a qualification for federal office, not a state law. The Constitution sets no age requirement for Supreme Court justices, but a constitutional amendment could add one. Such a requirement would apply equally to all potential justices and would not discriminate against a protected class. Age classifications are generally subject to rational basis review, and a minimum age for a high-level judicial position could be rationally related to ensuring maturity and experience. Therefore, it would not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
