A Case Research Of Equal Protection Of USA

In 2018,the scoring method for Shanghai foreign university graduates who settled in Shanghai was rated as one of the “Top Ten Chinese Constitutional Cases in 2018” by the Constitutional Law Research Association of the Chinese Law Society because of the scoring method(hereinafter referred to as the New Deal).: Beginning in 2018,undergraduate graduates from two Tsinghua Peking University schools can settle in Shanghai as long as they meet the basic application requirements.This policy has caused fierce controversy in all walks of life,and most of the opponents believe that the way the New Deal distinguishes Peking University Tsinghua from other college students constitutes discrimination and violates the equality of most applicants.In contrast,Shanghai's previous ratings The measures are reasonable for differentiating applicants based on factors such as foreign language ability,scientific research ability,and entrepreneurial ability.Proponents believe that the New Deal is conducted against the background of fierce competition for talent in big cities.This New Deal helps Shanghai attract more High-quality college students.We analyzed this case from the perspective of the Constitution,and found that there were no such cases in China before,and scholars' discussions on equal protection did not generally reach the level of constitutional determination.On the contrary,there are many cases of this type in the history of the US Constitution The academic discussion has also lasted for two centuries.Relatively speaking,the judicial community has rich experience in adjudicating cases involving equal protection,and the academic community has reached a certain depth and breadth in all aspects of equal protection.Then,in the spirit of “the stones of other mountains can attack jade”,we use the rulings of two more famous constitutional cases in the history of the United States Constitution as the starting point,and at the same time,we settle in the New Deal in Shanghai and find that China and the United States are equal Differences in the analytical framework of protection,and enrich the discussion framework of equal protection in China with the rich experience of the United States as data and data.The first case is Brown v.Topeka City Board of Education.This case was written by Justice Warren in the Federal Supreme Court.This ruling mainly discussed the principle of “isolation but equality” established more than half a century ago.Whether it is constitutional or not,this principle stipulates that public segregation does not constitute discrimination as long as it guarantees that blacks who have been separated can receive the same material treatment as whites.The ultimate focus of the dispute in this case was whether segregation itself constituted discrimination.Justice Warren,under tremendous pressure,declared that segregation constituted discrimination,and segregation was prohibited in the field of public education in this case.This case establishes the bottom line for equality in American society,that is,it cannot be separated,that is,it is treated arbitrarily.The second case is the case of University of California v Bakke.This case mainly addresses the scale of public institutions when treating minority groups,and whether the rights of members of the majority group can be sacrificed.This is actually a small place in a substantial equality movement.In the interlude,the discussion focuses on the extent to which minorities can be favored in order to achieve substantial equality.In the end,Justice Powell determined in the ruling that preferential treatment of minorities was the only way to achieve substantive equality,but only to the extent that no other citizens' constitutional rights could be sacrificed.The third case is the case of the University of Michigan Law School(Grutter v.Bollinger,539 US 306).This case is a continuation of the Baker case in a certain sense.Enormous obstacles were encountered in the application of this jurisprudence,because Justice Powell had a certain degree of support for both parties in the ruling.The controversial focus of this case is similar to that of the University of California case.The presiding judge,Sandra Day O'Conner,through extensive reference to the opinions of Justice Powell,determined the final standard for reviewing such cases,giving preferential treatment to minority communities The purpose itself is in line with social interests,but the policy itself and implementation must be rigorously designed(Narrowly Tailored),in line with the policy purpose.Through the above cases,we find that the analysis framework of the mainstream equality protection in the world,represented by the United States,firstly has the prohibition of isolation,and then has the factor of preferential treatment for minority groups,and this framework seems to be incompatible with the Shanghai New Deal.Although the New Deal is treated differently,it does not detract from the rights of applicants,but grants privileges to some people.Although the New Deal involves preferential treatment,it is not aimed at vulnerable groups.At this point,our analysis has entered a dilemma.Although the existing mainstream analysis framework is relatively complete,China's problems are too special.In view of this,the author believes that in order for the existing analysis framework to better serve the problem of China,it is necessary to expand the analysis elements contained in the existing framework and introduce the concepts with Chinese characteristics into the existing framework.While making China's problems more hopeful,other countries in the world also have data to follow when facing potential risks.