The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This means that states cannot discriminate against individuals based on certain characteristics, such as race, religion, or gender.

The strict scrutiny test is the most rigorous level of judicial review used by courts to determine whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause. Under this test, the government must have a compelling interest in the law or action, and the law or action must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that the state had no compelling interest in preventing interracial marriage and that the laws were not narrowly tailored to achieve any legitimate interest.

The intermediate scrutiny test is used to review laws that discriminate on the basis of gender. Under this test, the government must have an important interest in the law or action, and the law or action must be substantially related to achieving that interest.

In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that a state law giving preference to men over women in the administration of estates violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that the state had no important interest in preferring men over women in this context and that the law was not substantially related to achieving any legitimate interest.

The rational basis test is the least rigorous level of judicial review used by courts to determine whether a law or government action violates the Equal Protection Clause. Under this test, the government must have a rational basis for the law or action, and the law or action must be rationally related to achieving that basis.

In Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955), the Supreme Court ruled that a state law prohibiting optometrists from fitting or selling eyeglasses without a prescription from an ophthalmologist did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that the state had a rational basis for the law, which was to protect the public from unqualified practitioners.

The doctrine of suspect classifications requires the government to use strict scrutiny when reviewing laws that discriminate against certain groups of people, such as racial minorities, religious minorities, and national origin minorities. This means that the government must have a compelling interest in the law or action, and the law or action must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

The doctrine of heightened scrutiny is a synonym for the doctrine of suspect classifications. It requires the government to use strict scrutiny when reviewing laws that discriminate against certain groups of people, such as racial minorities, religious minorities, and national origin minorities.

The doctrine of intermediate scrutiny allows the government to use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing laws that discriminate against certain groups of people, such as women and aliens. Under this doctrine, the government must have an important interest in the law or action, and the law or action must be substantially related to achieving that interest.

The doctrine of rational basis review allows the government to use rational basis review when reviewing laws that discriminate against certain groups of people, such as economic status and age. Under this doctrine, the government must have a rational basis for the law or action, and the law or action must be rationally related to achieving that basis.

A law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race would be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because race is a suspect classification. This means that the government would have to have a compelling interest in the law, and the law would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

A law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender would be subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause because gender is an intermediate classification. This means that the government would have to have an important interest in the law, and the law would have to be substantially related to achieving that interest.

A law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of height would be subject to rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause because height is not a suspect or intermediate classification. This means that the government would only have to have a rational basis for the law, and the law would only have to be rationally related to achieving that basis.