McClesky v. Kemp held that the death penalty does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

• A. The death penalty does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause
• B. The death penalty was expanded to juveniles
• C. The death penalty is required in hate crime cases
• D. The death penalty is always unconstitutional

Answer: (A)

Disparate impact isn’t enough by itself in Equal Protection claims; you have to show purposeful discrimination in how the law is applied. In McClesky v. Kemp, the Court held that the death penalty did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause in that case because the petitioner failed to prove that the state's decision to seek or impose the death penalty was motivated by racial bias. The Court rejected the idea that statistical patterns showing more black defendants and more black victims among death sentences automatically violate equal protection. Instead, it said you must demonstrate discriminatory intent by the official decision-makers in the charging, prosecution, or sentencing process. So the decision allowed the death penalty to stand in general, unless a specific defendant can prove purposeful discrimination in their case. The other options don’t fit because they assert things McClesky addressed (or rejected) in this way—for example, that the death penalty is required in hate-crime cases, that it must be expanded to juveniles, or that it is always unconstitutional.