United States Environmental Protection Agency | Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | Equal Rights Amendment | Protection from Harassment Act 1997 | Establishment Clause | U.S. Customs and Border Protection | Grandfather clause | Commerce Clause | Australian Customs and Border Protection Service | Special Protection Area | Firearm Owners Protection Act | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | World Society for the Protection of Animals | The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better | Royal Society for the Protection of Birds | Pension Protection Act of 2006 | Equal Vision Records | Supremacy Clause | Protection racket | New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection | Driver's Privacy Protection Act | Digital Transmission Content Protection | Data Protection Act 1998 | Court of Protection | California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | Witless Protection | United Nations Protection Force | Train Protection & Warning System | Protection International | High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection |
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) that while such covenants are not strictly speaking illegal, their enforcement by state and federal courts violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; thus the writing of such covenants became a futile exercise.
The court held that the single-sex admissions policy of the Mississippi University for Women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Following the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the 1995 case Miller v. Johnson, the Second, based in Southwest Georgia, and then-Eleventh districts, which previously stretched from Atlanta to Savannah, were dismantled after being found unconstitional for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, according to the interpretation in Shaw v. Reno.
On December 20, 2013, federal judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for Utah struck down Amendment 3 as unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Writing for the Second Circuit panel majority, Judge Paul R. Hays concluded that in light of then-recent Supreme Court caselaw applying the Equal Protection Clause to voter restrictions, Kramer's constitutional challenge could not be considered frivolous.