In response to terrorist attacks carried out by individuals of a particular race, Congress enacted a statute imposing stringent new airport and airline security measures only on individuals of that race. Which constitutional ground provides the best basis for challenging this statute?

In response to terrorist attacks carried out by individuals of a particular race, Congress enacted a statute imposing stringent new airport and airline security measures only on individuals of that race. Which constitutional ground provides the best basis for challenging this statute?

• A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8
• B. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
• C. The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV
• D. The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Answer: (B)

Racial classifications by the government are evaluated under equal protection principles, and for actions by the federal government that protection applies through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. When Congress imposes security measures that apply only to people of a particular race, it triggers strict scrutiny: the law must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The federal government is bound by this equal protection standard just as states are, a principle established in Bolling v. Sharpe, where the Court incorporated equal protection against the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. The other avenues don’t fit as well. The Commerce Clause governs regulation of interstate commerce and wouldn’t rescue a race-based restriction in airport security. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects against a state’s discriminatory treatment of out-of-state citizens, not a federal statute. The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment targets state action and isn’t the primary vehicle for challenging a federal law. Thus the best basis to challenge such a statute is the equal protection component applied to the federal government via the Fifth Amendment.

Racial classifications by the government are evaluated under equal protection principles, and for actions by the federal government that protection applies through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. When Congress imposes security measures that apply only to people of a particular race, it triggers strict scrutiny: the law must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The federal government is bound by this equal protection standard just as states are, a principle established in Bolling v. Sharpe, where the Court incorporated equal protection against the federal government through the Fifth Amendment.

The other avenues don’t fit as well. The Commerce Clause governs regulation of interstate commerce and wouldn’t rescue a race-based restriction in airport security. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects against a state’s discriminatory treatment of out-of-state citizens, not a federal statute. The privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment targets state action and isn’t the primary vehicle for challenging a federal law. Thus the best basis to challenge such a statute is the equal protection component applied to the federal government via the Fifth Amendment.