In this article, Professor Darren Hutchinson contributes to the debate over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by arguing that the Supreme Court has inverted its purpose and effect. Professor Hutchinson contends that the Court, in its judicial capacity, provides protection and judicial solicitude for privileged and powerful groups in our country, while at the same time requires traditionally subordinated and oppressed groups to utilize the political process to seek redress for acts of oppression. According to Professor Hutchinson, this process allows social structures of oppression and sub-ordination to remain intact.First, Professor Hutchinson examines the various meanings ascribed to equality, the difficulty in finding one meaning of equality under the Fourteenth Amendment, and how the Supreme Court has recognized that it should have a role in protecting subjugated groups. Second, the article presents Professor Hutchinson’s inversion thesis, which argues that the Court has stopped acting as the protector of historically disadvantaged groups and now provides historically privileged classes judicial solicitude. Finally, this article recommends that, as an alternative, the Court should utilize an antisubordination theory of equality whereby the Court bases constitutional decisions on their de-monstrable effect on politically vulnerable and historically oppressed classes.
The full text of this Article is available to download as a PDF.