El debate estadounidense a propósito de la aplicación del escrutinio estricto a las clasificaciones raciales

  1. Laura Hernández Llinás
Teoría y realidad constitucional

ISSN: 1139-5583

Year of publication: 2023

Issue: 52

Pages: 555-578

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/TRC.52.2023.39029 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Teoría y realidad constitucional


Este trabajo analiza la evolución de una pieza fundamental en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema estadounidense sobre el principio de igualdad: la doctrina del escrutinio judicial estricto y su aplicación a las clasificaciones raciales. Desde los años noventa, la Corte Suprema somete cualquier clasificación racial, también aquellas diseñadas para beneficiar a colectivos históricamente discriminados, al más estricto escrutinio judicial. De acuerdo con un sector académico crítico, esta equiparación entre las acciones positivas y las formas tradicionales de discriminación resulta contraria a la lógica que dio origen a la revisión judicial por niveles. Una doctrina nacida para la protección reforzada de determinadas minorías se habría convertido en un instrumento al servicio de los intereses de la mayoría dominante.

Bibliographic References

  • Ackerman, B. (1985) Beyond Carolene Products. Harvard Law Review, 98 (4).
  • Ackerman, B. (2014). We the people, volume III: the civil rights revolution. The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Balkin, J. M. (2021). Korematsu as the Tribute that Vice Pays to Virtue. Arkansas Law Review, 74 (2).
  • Bernstein, D. E. (2003). Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism. Georgetown Law Journal, 92.
  • Bernstein, D.E. (2003). Lochner’s Legacy’s Legacy. Texas Law Review, 82.
  • Beschle, D. L. (2018). No More Tiers? Proportionality as an Alternative to Multiple Levels of Scrutiny in Individual Rights Cases. Pace Law Review, 38.
  • Bickel, A. M. (1986). The least dangerous Branch. Yale University Press.
  • Bixby, D.L., (1981). The Roosevelt Court, Democratic Ideology, and Minority Rights: Another Look at United States v. Classic. The Yale Law Journal, 90 (4).
  • Bork, R.H. (1991). The tempting of America. The political seduction of the Law. Simon & Schuster.
  • Brilmayer, L. (1986). Carolene, Conflicts, and the Fate of the “Insider-Outsider”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134 (6).
  • Bunker, M. D., Calvert, C. & Nevin, W. C. (2011). Strict in Theory, But Feeble in Fact? First Amendment Strict Scrutiny and the Protection of Speech. Communication Law and Policy, 16 (4).
  • Chemerinsky, E. (1991). Symposium: one hundred twenty-five years of the Reconstruction Amendments, The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment: the unfulfilled promise. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review, 25 (4).
  • Chemerinsky, E. (2015). Constitutional Law. Principles and Policies. Wolters Kluger, 5th edition.
  • Cover, R. M. (1981). The origins of judicial activism in the protection of minorities. Yale Law Journal, 91.
  • Cushman, B. (1998). Rethinking the New Deal, Oxford University Press. New York.
  • Fallon, R. H. (2007). Strict judicial scrutiny. UCLA Law Review, 54.
  • Fallon, R. H. (2019). The nature of constitutional rights. The invention and logic of strict judicial scrutiny. Cambridge University Press.
  • Fiss, O. M. (1976). Groups and the equal protection clause. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 5, (2).
  • Fiss, O. M. (1979). The Supreme Court 1978 Term. Foreword: The forms of justice. Harvard Law Review, 93 (1)
  • Fleming, J. E. (2006). “There is only one Equal Protection Clause”: An appreciation of Justice Stevens’s Equal Protection jurisprudence. Fordham Law Review, 74
  • Gillman, H. (1995). The Constitution besieged. Duke University Press.
  • Gilman, F. (2004). The Famous Footnote Four: A History of the Carolene Products Footnote. Texas Law Review, 46.
  • Goldberg, S. B. (2004). Equality Without Tiers. Southern California Law Review, 77.
  • Gottlieb, S. E. (2002). Tears for Tiers on the Rehnquist Court. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 4.
  • Greene, J. (2011). The anticanon. Harvard Law Review, 125.
  • Gunther, G. (1972). The Supreme Court 1971 Term. Foreword: In search of evolving doctrine on a changing court: a model for a newer equal protection. Harvard Law Review, 86, (1).
  • Hutchinson, D. L. (2003). Unexplainable on grounds other than race: The inversion of privilege and subordination in equal protection jurisprudence. University of Illinois Law Review, 2003 (3).
  • Klarman, M. (1991). Interpretive History of Modern Equal Protection. Michigan Law Review, 90 (2).
  • Karlan, P. S. (2001). Easing the spring: strict scrutiny and affirmative action after the redistricting cases. William & Mary Law Review, 43.
  • Karst, K. L. & Horowitz, H. W. (1979) The Bakke Opinions and Equal Protection Doctrine. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, 14 (1).
  • Kelso, R. (2001). Standards of review under the equal protection clause and related constitutional doctrines protecting individual rights: the base plus six model and modern Supreme Court practice. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 4.
  • Lusky, L. (1980). Public Trial and Public Right: The Missing Bottom Line. Hofstra Law Review, 8 (2).
  • Lusky, L. (1982). Footnote Redux: A “Carolene Products” Reminiscence. Columbia Law Review, 82 (6).
  • Lusky, L. (1993). Out nine tribunes: the Supreme Court in modern America. Praeger Publishers Inc.
  • Massey, C. R. (2004). The New Formalism: Requiem for Tiered Scrutiny? University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 6.
  • Mathews, J. & Sweet, A. S. (2010). All things in proportion-American rights review and the problem of balancing. Emory Law Journal, 60.
  • Nowak, J.E & Rotunda, R.D. & Young, J.N. (1986). Constitutional law. West Publishing Company, 3rd edition.
  • Pascoe, P. (2009). What comes naturally: Miscegenation law and the making of race in America. Oxford University Press.
  • Pettinga, G. L. (1987). Note, Rational basis with bite: intermediate scrutiny by any other name. Indiana Law Journal, 72.
  • Poueymirou, M. (2017). Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & the Death of the Political Process Doctrine. University of California Irvine Law Review, 7.
  • Robinson, G. & Robinson, T. (2005). Korematsu and Beyond: Japanese Americans and the origins of strict scrutiny. Law & Contemporary Problems, 68.
  • Rostow, E. V. (1945). The Japanese American Cases – A Disaster. The Yale Law Journal, 54 (3).
  • Ross II, B.L. (2013). Democracy and renewed distrust: Equal Protection and the evolving judicial conception of Politics. California Law Review, 201 (6).
  • Rubenfeld, J. (1997). Affirmative Action. The Yale Law Journal, 107 (2).
  • Rubin, P.J. (2000). Reconnecting doctrine and purpose: a comprehensive approach to strict scrutiny after Adarand and Shaw. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 149 (1).
  • Shaman, J. M. (1984). Cracks in the Structure: The Coming Breakdown of the Levels of Scrutiny. Ohio State Law Journal, 45.
  • Simmons, B. E. (1996). Reconsidering strict scrutiny of affirmative action. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 2.
  • Siegel, R. B. (2013). The Supreme Court 2012 Term. Foreword: equality divided. Harvard Law Review.
  • Siegel, S.A. (1991). Lochner Era Jurisprudence and the American Constitutional Tradition. North Carolina Law Review, 70 (1).
  • Siegel, S. A. (2006). The origin of the compelling state interest test and strict scrutiny. American Journal of Legal History, 48 (4).
  • Strauss, M. (2011). Reevaluating suspect classifications. Seattle University Law Review, 35.
  • Sunstein, C. (1987). Lochner ’s legacy. Columbia Law Review, 87 (5).
  • Thayer, J.B. (1893). The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law. Little, Brown and Company.
  • Tribe, L. (1988). American Constitutional Law. The Foundation Press Inc., Mineola, New York, 2nd edition.
  • Urofsky, M. I. (1997). Division and discord. The Supreme Court under Stone and Vinson, 1941-1953. University of South Carolina Press.
  • Vieira, N. (1969). Racial imbalance, black separatism, and permissible classification by race. Michigan Law Review, 67.
  • Wallenstein, P. (2004). Tell the Court I Love My Wife: Race, Marriage, and Law – An American History. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • White, G. E. (1996). The First Amendment comes of age: the emergence of Free Speech in twentieth century America. Michigan Law Review, 95 (2).
  • White, G. E. (2000). The Constitution and the New Deal, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Winkler, A. (2006). Fatal in theory and strict in fact: an empirical analysis of strict scrutiny in the federal courts. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59 (3).
  • Yoshino, K. (2011). The new Equal Protection. Harvard Law Review, 124 (3).