Equality is one of the principal political concerns of our times. This rising economic inequality is often cited as a major reason for the recent rise of political populism and therefore considered to be a danger to political stability. But economic inequality is not the only problem. Inequalities based on gender, race or nationality are also major issues in the contemporary discussion. While most commentators discuss political solutions, the research project "Correcting Inequality through Law" focused on the contribution that courts can make to correct inequalities. It had three main research questions: First, it aimed at drawing a map of different jurisprudential models of equality. For this purpose, it compared the equality case law of apex courts in 18 different jurisdictions. The core of the project was a systematic empirical analysis of the constitutional equality case law of each of the analyzed courts. We were able to identify four different approaches to equality that can be found in the judicial practice of the analyzed courts – the equality-as-non-discrimination model, the equality as reasonableness model, the positive-equality model, and the deferential model. The second research question focused on the reasons for why courts adopt these different models. The analysis showed that these reasons are quite complex. We identified multiple factors that influence why courts adopt specific doctrines. These factors are predominantly the authority of the court, the historical context and the founding narrative of the equality norm and the court, and the legal tradition. Moreover, the political preferences of the judges and the influence of foreign or international courts also play a role. The final research question focused on the normative strengths and weaknesses of the different models of equality. The analysis showed that each of these models, in normative terms, has specific advantages and drawbacks. For this reason, a relative normative assessment or even a ranking of the normative desirability of these different models seems difficult. There is not one model that suits all jurisdictions and legal traditions equally well. Instead, the models have to be understood as the result of the specific institutional and cultural contexts in which the courts operate.
