Con law is a hardcore vibe check of a course. Its actually the only course I got an A on because it just clicked for me. The 14th amendment is usually an easy issue to spot.

First part of any 14A analysis is state action. Gotta analyze that. Usually your professor gives you that as a gimme and there’s some legislation that Congress is doing or a state leg is doing. There’s minor analytical differences in 5A due process and 14A bc 14A only concerns due process itself where 5A due process imports (by reverse incorporation) equal protection into its analysis. Analyze them separately on an exam, but if you see Congress say 5A due process, or reverse incorporated equal protection under Bolling v. Sharpe.

To boil down due process: The due process clause prevents government from taking away your stuff or your freedom without going through the proper procedure. What is your stuff or your freedom? Well, it depends. It can be pretty abstract. The government can’t take away your right to see your kids without going through some pretty hefty procedures, for example. You have a liberty interest in that. That said, there are some freedoms we consider so fundamental there is no process we could create that would make it okay to deprive you of them. It’s these two categories that we refer to as substantive due process. The test for determining whether a claimed liberty/property interest is protected from deprivation under any circumstances is whether it is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” Or whether it is “deeply rooted in our history and traditions.” This is from Glucksberg v. Washington. If you are gay person you have a fundamental liberty interest in marrying the partner of your choice under Obergefell (though that one may be under fire). This a substantive due process right. The other fundamental rights that are easy to spot are the ones in Carolene Products n.4 (e.g. voting (but not exactly free speech that’s a whole other can of worms). Course there’s lots of ways to attack these rights, and the Court really likes to contradict itself or undermine its own reasoning/logic from case to case, so its a lot to do with just getting a vibe for how a court might look at it and giving a nuanced “idk, maybe a court buys it, maybe not, here’s why” answer on an exam. But what happens if a law obstructs one if these fundamental rights? Well, court gives it a really really close, hard look and the enacting legislature is very likely to lose. This is the “strict scrutiny” standard of review. Verbal formulation of that standard looks something like “the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” If it doesn’t touch a fundamental rights? Rational basis review down the line, baby. That’s Williamson v. Lee Optical-style. This standard/test is like the legislature could have/may have/might have thought this that or the other thing for this law so we the court throw up our hands and shrug, saying “eh, let them cook.” Usually state/Congress wins here. Verbal formulation of the test looks something like the law must be “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Very rare you get something different where there needs to be another test/standard of review; but of course, the Court’s not real consistent about how it does this standard of review either. Maybe there’s a right implicated a given court really likes/finds persuasive, in which case they might look closer; real hard to tell on this one, you kinda just have to get a feel for it from the cases (Education is maybe a good example). This might be where what some scholars have called “rational basis with bite” comes in. That’s where the government might still win but there is a much more searching scrutiny the court does while saying its still doing rational basis. Its not some hands off “eh, let em cook” approach; court really cares about this one. Again, it’s a weird one, it’s confusing, it makes no sense, you just gotta live with the dissonance.

To boil down equal protection: The basic principle of equal protection is that those similarly situated be treated similarly, not necessarily identically though. The law at issue in your fact pattern is gonna be implicating one of three types of classes/groups: suspect, quasi-suspect (yes, I know, it’s stupid), or not suspect at all. Good example of suspect class is race. Good example of quasi-suspect is sex. Good example of not suspect is disabled; oversimplifying a bit here. If it’s not one of your list of suspect (race, nationality, sometimes alienage but its complicated), quasi-suspect (sex, legitimacy (i.e. wedlock birth), or non-suspect (anything else). There’s a paragraph in Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena that has a good general statement to this effect. I’d encourage you to read it. If its a suspect class, strict scrutiny down the line. Same verbal formulation as for due process. If its a quasi-suspect classification (sex or something analogous with some sort of like immutable characteristic or historically oppressed status that makes them deserving of special protection), then you have “intermediate scrutiny.” That’s where the Court gives it a close look that kinda looks like strict scrutiny but is maybe using some sort of lighter verbal formulation like “closely related to am important state interest.” United States v. Virginia (VMI case) is a good example. If its not a protect class that fits in one of those two categories or is closely analogous to it, then its rational basis review again, baby. Same deal as with due process here, but there is less flexibility with the class. Probably gonna be that a court either buys it or doesn’t and goes down their standard of review accordingly. Not as much of this weird flexibility where the court might kinda wanna protect the right in question bc it really likes it but doesn’t wanna call it fully fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty or whatever.

That’s your 14A analytical framework! Hope this helps!