A) A state law establishes a minimum driving speed on federal highways. INCORRECT This option does not involve a classification of persons, but rather a regulation of conduct on highways. The Equal Protection Clause applies to laws that treat individuals or groups differently. A minimum speed law applies equally to all drivers, so it does not raise equal protection concerns. Additionally, states have broad police powers to regulate traffic for public safety, and such laws are generally upheld under rational basis review. Therefore, this scenario is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
B) A state law establishes a higher minimum wage for men than for women. CORRECT This law explicitly discriminates based on gender, treating men and women differently with respect to wages. Under the Equal Protection Clause, gender classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny, meaning they must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to that interest. There is no legitimate reason to pay men more than women for the same work, so such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional. This scenario is a textbook example of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as it denies women equal protection under the law.
C) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum education level to serve as President. INCORRECT The Constitution sets specific qualifications for the presidency in Article II, Section 1: natural-born citizen, age 35, and 14 years of residency. These qualifications are exclusive, and Congress cannot add additional requirements through ordinary legislation. However, a constitutional amendment could change these qualifications, but the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit educational requirements for federal office because the clause applies to state action, and the qualifications for federal office are not subject to equal protection challenges in the same way. Moreover, the scenario is hypothetical and not a current law, so it does not represent an actual violation.
D) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum age to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. INCORRECT The Constitution does not set an age requirement for Supreme Court justices, but a constitutional amendment could impose one. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit age classifications per se; they are subject to rational basis review, which is lenient. Since there is no current law, this scenario is hypothetical. Even if enacted, an age requirement would likely be upheld if it had a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, such as ensuring maturity or experience. Therefore, it does not represent a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
