When Courts Serve A Narrow Perception of Freedom- Equal Protection Ignored (Allegory of the Clan)

 Those of us who believe in the Enlightenment principles that helped shape the nation also believe that human rights and civil rights are essential to a free society. Many of these principles developed because early Americans experienced discrimination based on their religious beliefs. Over time, the country has continued to develop its understanding of equality, liberty, and human dignity. Imperfectly yes, developing nevertheless.

We now recognize that every person has value. People should not be segregated, targeted, enslaved, or denied their basic rights because of who they are. Yet discrimination, abuse of authority, violence against, and misuse of laws can still occur. Individuals may use institutions to promote religious hatred, racial hatred, personal interests, help their friends, or foster particular ideologies. Coordination leads to organized extremism.

This becomes especially concerning when there are inadequate checks and balances. Imagine ordinary people—retirees, workers, or community members—talking about allegations that officials knew about misconduct but failed to address it.  Complaints about bullying, abuse of authority, sexual misconduct, open hate, targetings or other improper behavior are repeatedly ignored, public trust can suffer. 

The same concern applies when people believe that court decisions or other official actions are influenced by personal relationships, favoritism, or other improper considerations. Courts and government institutions need meaningful safeguards to prevent those problems and to ensure that everyone receives equal treatment under the law.

We can debate what government institutions should do, but checks and balances have to work in practice, not just exist on paper. Public institutions have a responsibility to serve the entire population rather than a select group of friends, associates, or powerful interests.

That is why these principles remain important. Regardless of a person's wealth, position, connections, or influence, no individual should have unchecked authority over others. Institutions should protect constitutional rights, apply the law fairly, and serve the public as a whole.

The philosophical, hypothetical Allegory of the Clan learning story shows us the danger when moral conscience or fathfulness to oaths/public professions are not part of the decision making process. A lack of checks and balances and desire to foster justice a type of intentional justice undermining criminality. Take this allegory with a grain of salt for learning  purposes. 

No such thing as repeated mistakes.

Equal Protection Prophylaxis

Examines how courts can prevent unequal government treatment before discrimination occurs.

Government discretion can create opportunities for selective or unequal enforcement.

Constitutional protections sometimes require officials to follow clearer standards.

The article discusses examples involving free speech, searches, and due process.

Clear standards can make government actions easier for courts to review.

Nachmany, E. (2024). Equal protection prophylaxis. Harvard Law Review, 138, 632. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/equal-protection-prophylaxis/⁠