West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶182

All these cases help explain what it means for the “fit between the means and the important end [to be] ‘exceedingly persuasive,’” Nguyen, 533 U. S., at 70, and they demonstrate that the existence of readily identifiable, discrete subclasses that do not fit a classification’s generalization can factor into that analysis. If a State includes a discrete subclass in an overbroad classification when exempting them would not unnecessarily jeopardize the government interest the State wishes to further, that can show that the State’s choice to use the classification is not actually in service of those interests, but rests on discriminatory generalizations instead.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.