Equal protection clause

In Lewis v. U.S., the Supreme Court holds that the federal government denying felons the right to possess firearms does not infringe on the provisions of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms nor on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

S Petitioners raise a statutory claim, under the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII, and a constitutional claim, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A decision for petitioners on their statutory claim would provide the relief sought, so we consider it first. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 123, 105 S.Ct. 2520, 86 L.Ed.2d 81 (1985) Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U.S. 48, 51, 104 S.Ct. 1577, 80 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (per curiam) ( [N]ormally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case ). 

In searching for a standard that strikes a more appropriate balance, we note that this Court has considered cases similar to this one, albeit in the context of the Equal Protection Clause of the Eourteenth Amendment. The Court has held that certain government actions to remedy past racial discrimination-actions that... 

Our statutory holding does not address the constitutionality of the measures taken here in purported compliance with Title Vn. We also do not hold that meeting the strong-basis-in-evidence standard would satisfy the Equal Protection Clause in a future case. As we explain below, because respondents have not met their burden under Title VII, we need not decide whether a legitimate fear of disparate impact is ever sufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under the Constitution. 

The court declared that the commerce clause of the Constitution (allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce) did apply to Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory. It also disposed of the due process and equal protection arguments, citing the rational and practical need for lawmakers to make assumptions based on a person s prior conviction for a crime. 

ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1, Clause 9, limits the risk reduction that can be claimed for a BPCS that is not implemented according to the requirements of ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1. The risk reduction must be assumed to be less than or equal to 10 (ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1 Clause 9.4.3). Clause 9 also requires that the allocation take into account potential common cause, common mode, or dependent failures that could cause more than one protection layer to fail. 

NOTE 2 Where a detailed hazard analysis of the BPCS demonstrates that the control and protective elemertts within the BPCS are functionally independent, it may be possible to conclude that a failure in the controlling part has a sufficiently low probability of causing the failure of the protective function. In such cases, it may be appropriate to take credit for the BPCS as a protection layer, even if the BPCS can initiate the process hazard. In accordance with ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004-1, Clause 9, the risk reduction claimed for the BPCS as a protection layer must be less than or equal to 10. 

---