Equal Protection

The MBE almost always tests this in two moves: identify the classification on the face of the statute, then apply the matching tier. The classic trap is a facially neutral law: a statute that says nothing about race still gets only rational basis unless the facts show both discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect (Washington v. Davis); disparate impact alone is a wrong-answer magnet. Watch for the affirmative-action fact pattern — race-based remedies still draw strict scrutiny (Adarand), and after SFFA v. Harvard (2023) race may no longer be used as an admissions factor, so distrust any choice approving it (older banks still cite Grutter as good law).

Don’t confuse equal protection with substantive due process: due process attacks a law burdening everyone’s fundamental right, while equal protection attacks a law treating classes differently. A clean tell — if only some people are denied a right, run equal protection; if everyone is, run due process. Alienage is the sleeper: state alienage classifications get strict scrutiny, but federal ones get only rational basis (immigration/naturalization power).