442 U.S. 256 (1979)
Feeney v. Massachusetts is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the intersection of equal protection and employment preference for veterans.
Does a state law granting hiring preference to veterans violate the Equal Protection Clause by having a disparate impact on women?
A law that is facially neutral and neutral in its explicit terms violates the Equal Protection Clause only if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the law was enacted or maintained for the purpose of discriminating against a protected class.
The Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts veterans' preference did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent behind the statute's enactment.
Feeney v. Massachusetts is significant because it clarifies that demonstrating a disparate impact is insufficient to invalidate a law under the Equal Protection Clause without proving intent. Law students must understand this case to grasp how courts require evidence of discriminatory intent for constitutional violations, thus reinforcing the importance of legislative intent in equal protection claims.