What legal principle or court ruling precludes laws targeted at a specific individual or group?

[md2000]

@denquixote

IANAL but: Does this have something to do with the recent enactment of voter ID legislation, which is arguably directed at minorities and the poor? If it can be shown perhaps that, even though the law is not directed at a particular minority group, the overall affect is to disproportionately deny e.g. African Americans their rights then the state’s interest in enacting such a law would come under heightened scrutiny if challenged in a Federal court

This principle would also apply to free speech legislation, more precisely laws prohibiting certain forms of speech or laws affecting one gender. There is no law that says such laws cannot be enacted, but rather that because of the danger they must be subjected to increased or more exacting scrutiny.

@lawbuff

Such passage would be declared UNconstitutional, period, but say a person were arrested under it, that would be in the Prosecutorial sense, “Selective Prosecution/Enforcement”, based on a “Selective Enactment”.

@Exapno_Mapcase

You’ve just contradicted what everyone else in this thread has said. Do you have anything to back this up?

@lawbuff

How did I contradict it?? Bill of Attainder’s are UNconstitutional.

the voter-ID law is being challenged because (allegedly) the practical effect is to discriminate against constitutionally protected group - by race. A lot more poor people are minorities, a law that hurts poor people disproportionately a lot more, hurts minorities a lot more. The alleged problem being addressed (people voting fraudulently) is nowhere near the level alleged by proponents of the legislation, so the law puts excessive demands on poor=minoritis for no good reason. It can be argued that it was in fact designed to do this - stop minorities who more often vote Democrat from doing voting at all unless they go to extreme lengths. the obstacles to obtaining proper ID are much greater for poor people; they likely don’t have computers, they likely don’t have the free time or automobile to travel a long distance to apply for things like birth certificates in person, they are less likely to have this sort of documentaton already, yada yada.

You see the case - voter ID = stop protected minorities from voting is the argument. Therefore, the law unfairly targets a constitutionally PROTECTED minority. If true, this is unconstitutional. Bill of Attainder etc. have nothing to do with it.

Writing a bill to target densely populated area - class 1 , 2 etc. - faces no such challenge, unless the result is to effectively discriminate against a protected minority. Challenges over discrimination have had two attacks - the intent was to discriminate, or the net effect is to discriminate. (I.e. unecessarily demanding physical standards had the net effect of discrimanting against female firefighter or police applicants, whether intentional or not.) While generally unintentional results don’t qualify as discrimination, if they are too obvious then they may.

The trouble with passing a too targetted law is this - what would stop Walmart, for example, from contracting with a separate Wal-Consultant-Mart, inc. to provide the people to work its stores, who were not then employed by Walmart? However, a law that covered “everyone over X employees except the following” prevents a silly end run. Of course, i’m surprised WalMart didn’t just franchise out half its stores to bypass this rule.

[lawbuff]

Md, to clarify, as in your example, that is PERCEIVED targeting, the SPECIFIC wording of the law does not say that it is directed at minorities, but it’s application could be so.

To clarify, if, the text of the law is unclear or vague, then the courts decide, my other post was directed at the posters intent, when a SPECIFIC group is targeted, his words:

specific individual or group?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@lawbuff

How did I contradict it?? Bill of Attainder’s are UNconstitutional.

As cited above there are many other kinds of possible bills “targeted at specific individual or small group” other than a bill of attainder that are entirely legal. That’s the distinction that everybody has carefully been making.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@LawMonkey

(I actually remember there being dicta in some case or another that discussed the possibility of a “class of one” in an equal protection context–someone who’s had con law more recently than I can feel free to chime in.)

Not even dicta:

Our cases have recognized successful equal protection claims brought by a “class of one,” where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County, 260 U.S. 441 (1923); Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty., 488 U.S. 336 (1989). In so doing, we have explained that “‘[t]he purpose of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is to secure every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through duly constituted agents.’” Sioux City Bridge Co., supra, at 445 (quoting Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield, 247 U.S. 350, 352 (1918)).

VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, et al. v. GRACE OLECH.

But as you say, that just means an equal protection claim can be brought based on a class of one; it doesn’t mean that a law can’t ever be passed that targets a class of one.

Also, I don’t know what the other thread that’s being referred to is, but this part of the OP:

[QUOTE=dstarfire]
In a recent thread one flaw with a posted theory/idea was that it involved a law targeted at specific individual or small group (and not a member of an explicitly protected group like race or religion).
[/QUOTE]

sounds backward. It’s harder to legally justify legislation that targets individuals in an explicitly protected group. Again, that’s not to say you can’t do it; there’s no blanket ban on passing laws that affect this group or that group or this person or that person, but depending on the law and the group it might be either really easy to get away with or nearly impossible.