Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor
The two conceptions of that principle allow for due process and equal protection analyses to lead to contradictory results. The structure of that debate, which is apparent in a number of cases, is as follows. One justice adopts a broad view of equal protection and concludes that the principle guarantees a given right to a class of people. Another justice adopts a narrow conception of equal protection and finds it inapplicable to the facts of the case.
The advocate of the narrow view then turns to a due process analysis and finds, in some cases, that due process does not entail the right at issue, or, if it does, that the benefit of the right is outweighed by its cost to the state. In such cases, equal protection and due process analyses lead to divergent results.
For the rest see
Plessy v Ferguson
Brown v Board of Education.
Textbook example of why you shouldn't get your law off of the internet.
Can't find an on point case that supports your legal contention? Doesn't matter. Just cut and paste some random verbage from any case you can find, plant your flag, and declare victory.