Pl 1954: in hernandez v. texas, the supreme court rules that trying a defendant before a jury that deliberately excludes members of the defendant's ethnic group violates the equal protection clause. 1996: in united states v. virginia, the supreme court rules that a military school must provide women with equal treatment by admitting them to the same program as men. 2015: in obergefell v. hodges, the supreme court rules that state laws forbidding same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause. what do the events in this timeline suggest about how the supreme court has interpreted equal protection? a. it has interpreted equal protection as less important in the 21st century. b. it has interpreted equal protection as applying at the federal level, not at the state level. c. it has interpreted equal protection as not relevant to everyday citizens. d. it has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people.

The Equal Protection clause is the last part of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the USA. The full amendment reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

All these rulings have actually had the effect of reinforcing the legal protections of very different minority groups (Hispanics, women, LGBTs). The SCOTUS has ruled that these protections apply both a the federal and the state level since according to the Constitution all states must ensure equal protection of the laws for all citizens born or naturalized in the United States. The court clearly considers these issues as relevant to everyday citizens.

Therefore, the correct answer is D. It has interpreted equal protection as applying to different groups of people.

the answer is option a.