A state’s law enforcement officers must be United States citizens. An alien applies for and is denied a job as a forensic pathologist in the state. The alien sues in federal court seeking to invalidate the citizenship requirement. The court should analyze the case under:

• A. Incorporation doctrine
• B. Equal protection with strict scrutiny for alienage classifications
• C. Due process considerations only
• D. Privileges or Immunities Clause as the sole basis for relief

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how the Equal Protection Clause treats classifications based on alienage in the context of state employment. When a state bans or conditions eligibility for a public job on citizenship, the Supreme Court generally applies strict scrutiny to that alienage classification. This means the state must show a compelling interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, a high bar that federal and state governments rarely meet in wholesale alienage exclusions for ordinary public-employee positions.

In this scenario, denying a state forensic pathologist position to an alien facially targets a class defined by nationality, and the job is a public role with significant public trust. The appropriate analysis is strict scrutiny under equal protection. It’s unlikely the state could justify such a broad citizenship requirement for a professional, given the strongest form of scrutiny required for alienage classifications.

Other doctrines don’t fit as the primary vehicle here. Incorporation doctrine isn’t the mechanism for evaluating this kind of legal restriction, and due process considerations alone don’t address the legitimacy of a nationality-based employment restriction. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been used sparingly and does not provide the sole or primary basis to uphold state citizenship requirements for public employment.