here - Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL

Case: 11-1612 Document: 003110561288 Page: 30 Date Filed: 06/13/2011
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Village of
Willowbrook v. Grace, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), aff’g 160 F.3d 386 (7 th Cir. 1998).
However the Supreme Court in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499–500 (1954), a
companion case to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
(1954), held that segregation of students in the public schools of the District of
Columbia violated the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment and not the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, notably does
not contain an equal protection clause which applies only to the Several States.
The Supreme Court noted that the concepts of equal protection and due
process, both stemming from the universal ideal of fairness under the law, are not
mutually exclusive and are coextensive. The Equal Protection Clause is more of a
safeguard to prohibit unfairness than the Due Process Clause, and as such the two
clauses are not always interchangeable. But discrimination may be so unjustifiable
as to be violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bolling,
supra. ―Equal protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area,‖ the Supreme
Court has said, ―is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.‖ Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976), aff’g 401 F.Supp. 1235 (D.D.C. 1975), aff’g in part,
FUERST ITTLEMAN, PL
1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE, 32 ND FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33131 • T: 305.350.5690 • F: 305.371.8989 • WWW.FUERSTLAW.COM
22 | P a g e