Question 16

B: A state law establishes a higher minimum wage for men than for women.

Establishing a higher minimum wage for men than for women directly violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating based on gender. This clause mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally under the law, and differing wage standards based on gender clearly contravene this principle.

A) A state law establishes a minimum driving speed on federal highways.

This option does not represent a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because establishing a minimum driving speed applies universally to all drivers, regardless of gender, race, or other characteristics. Such regulations are typically justified for public safety and do not discriminate against any group.

B) A state law establishes a higher minimum wage for men than for women.

This scenario is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as it discriminates based on sex by providing unequal compensation for the same work. Equal protection under the law necessitates that individuals be treated the same in similar circumstances, which this law directly undermines.

C) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum education level to serve as President.

This proposed amendment does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it applies uniformly to all individuals seeking to serve as President without regard to race, gender, or other protected categories. Setting educational requirements is permissible as a qualification criterion.

D) A proposed constitutional amendment requires a minimum age to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Similar to option C, this proposed amendment does not infringe upon the Equal Protection Clause. A minimum age requirement is a standard legal practice that applies equally to all candidates, ensuring that all individuals meet the same age criteria to serve on the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Option B is definitively the correct answer as it explicitly establishes a discriminatory practice that violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating individuals differently based on gender. In contrast, the other options either apply equally to all individuals or set legitimate qualifications that do not discriminate against any specific group. Thus, they do not represent violations of equal protection under the law.